2011 (1) TMI 297 - AT - Customs

Smuggling racket - Search and seizure - Illegally imported Penalty on Revenue officers - Print-outs of telephone calls made by various noticees amongst each other was held to be reliable evidence by impugned order - The details contained in the print-outs did not disclose the conversations amongst the smuggling racket - Regularity and frequency of calls with customs officers by the smuggling racket proved the modus operandi of the racket. Frequent contacts by and with Air Customs Officers on regular basis, especially with the officers on duty brought them to charge of connivance and abetment who made the smuggling successful - here was no recording of conversation made by the appellant to different offending cell phones reason of such contacts remained questionable and not satisfactorily explained - Even the appellant s pleading about the contact with the informers appears to be baseless. In the course of hearing no evidence were led to demonstrate that all the trader appellants were strangers to the proceeding - Rather, they established their intimacy with the smuggling racket and proved their deal in the smuggled goods - Statement recorded from them as well as smuggling racket unmistakably disclosed their identity and destination of the offending goods arrived at the IGI Airport and cleared making evasion of customs duty - Other than the arguments, no logical reasons could be shown to us to infer dissociation of the trader appellants from the charge - When the proof of transport of the offending goods established destination thereof and disposal of the offending goods by trader appellant there remained no doubt to bring these appellants to charge Penalty on revenue officers confirmed - Thus all their appeals being devoid of merit are dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Illegally imported goods without declaration.
2. Fraudulent evasion of customs duty.
3. Liability of imported goods to confiscation.
4. Penal action under Sections 112(a) & 112(b) or 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Recovery of customs duty under Section 28(1) read with Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962.
6. Conspiracy and collusion by customs officers and other individuals.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Illegally Imported Goods Without Declaration:
The tribunal examined whether the goods in question were illegally imported into India without being declared as required under Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962, and in violation of prohibitions/restrictions imposed under the relevant provisions of the Export Import Policy, Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, Foreign Trade Regulation Rules, and the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal found that the goods were indeed illegally imported without proper declaration, leading to their liability for confiscation.

2. Fraudulent Evasion of Customs Duty:
The tribunal evaluated whether customs duty was fraudulently evaded by reasons of collusion, wilful misstatement, and suppression of facts. The investigation revealed that illegal imports of offending goods were made by passengers on different dates, including the import on 28-8-2000, in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, evading customs duty by misdeclaring both quantity and value. The tribunal upheld the findings of fraudulent evasion of customs duty.

3. Liability of Imported Goods to Confiscation:
The tribunal considered whether the imported goods, by virtue of being illegally imported into India without declaration and in violation of prohibitions/restrictions, were liable to confiscation under Sections 111(d), 111(f), and 111(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal found that the goods were indeed liable to confiscation under these sections due to the fraudulent evasion of customs duty and misdeclaration.

4. Penal Action Under Sections 112(a) & 112(b) or 114A of the Customs Act, 1962:
The tribunal examined whether the noticees committed acts of commission and omission that rendered the imported goods liable to confiscation and were liable to penal action under the provisions of Section 112(a) & 112(b) or 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal found that the noticees, including customs officers and other individuals, were liable for penal action under these sections for their involvement in the smuggling activities and aiding in the fraudulent evasion of customs duty.

5. Recovery of Customs Duty Under Section 28(1) Read With Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962:
The tribunal evaluated whether the customs duty as demanded in the show cause notice was recoverable from the noticees under the provisions of Section 28(1) read with the proviso thereto along with interest thereon under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal upheld the recovery of customs duty along with interest from the noticees.

6. Conspiracy and Collusion by Customs Officers and Other Individuals:
The tribunal considered whether the customs officers and other noticees conspired and colluded with the main offenders and aided and abetted the acts of commission and omission allegedly committed by them. The tribunal found that several customs officers and individuals were involved in the conspiracy and collusion, aiding the smuggling activities and causing loss to revenue. The tribunal upheld the penalties imposed on these officers and individuals for their involvement in the smuggling racket.

Conclusion:
The tribunal upheld the findings of the adjudicating authority on most counts, confirming the penalties and recovery of customs duty from the involved parties. The appeals filed by the customs officers and traders were dismissed, while the appeals filed by the revenue against certain customs officers and individuals were allowed, imposing penalties on them for their involvement in the smuggling activities. The tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to customs regulations and the severe consequences of fraudulent evasion of customs duty and smuggling activities.

← Previous Next →