2010 (6) TMI 454 - AT - Customs

Confiscation u/s 113 - Silver bars - The respondents had been intercepted by the police at Thuthibari a place 6 Km from Indo Nepal border and they were in the possession of 37 pcs of sliver weighing 24078 gms - The place where the respondents had been intercepted was not close to any of the routes for legal import and export notified under Section 7(1)(c) of the Act or Indo Nepal Treaty - The respondents have not retracted their statements and clearly admitted that the silver was being taken by them to Nepal and the background in which these persons were intercepted with silver bars also supports their statements with such evidence no further corroboration was necessary. Held that the Commissioner (Appeals) s order holding that there was no evidence of illicit export is not correct - Hence the impugned order setting aside the order-in-original is not correct. - The Revenue s appeals allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of silver under seizure and imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Interpretation of authorized routes for export specified under Notification No. 63/94.
3. Admissibility of statements recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 as evidence.

Confiscation of Silver and Imposition of Penalty:
The case involved the seizure and recovery of silver bars near the Indo-Nepal border, leading to the issuance of show-cause notices (SCNs) for confiscation and penalty imposition under Sections 113 and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Additional Commissioner initially confiscated the silver and imposed penalties on the appellants, alleging an attempt to export the silver through an unauthorized route. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order, citing lack of evidence showing an attempt to cross into Nepal with the goods. The Revenue appealed this decision, leading to the present case.

Interpretation of Authorized Routes:
The main contention revolved around whether the appellants were attempting to export the silver through an unauthorized route, considering the absence of any authorized export routes near the interception location. The appellant's representative argued that the silver was liable for confiscation under Section 113 due to this unauthorized export attempt. Conversely, the respondents' counsel highlighted the lack of specific mention of silver in the routes specified under Notification No. 63/94. Referring to a previous Tribunal judgment, the respondents argued that the interception alone did not prove an illegal export attempt.

Admissibility of Statements as Evidence:
The admissibility of the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 played a crucial role in determining the intent behind carrying the silver. The appellants' statements admitting their plan to take the silver to Nepal were not retracted, making them admissible as substantive evidence as per legal precedent. The presiding judge referred to a Supreme Court ruling emphasizing the evidentiary value of such unretracted statements. Based on these statements and the circumstances of the interception, the judge concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in finding no evidence of illicit export, reinstating the order-in-original for confiscation and penalty imposition.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment showcases the intricate legal arguments, interpretations of statutory provisions, and the significance of unretracted statements as evidence in customs cases.