2013 (12) TMI 884 - AT - Customs

Penalty under Section 112(a) and (b) - Confiscation of 750 bars of gold imported in concealed manner - Held that - The appellants have not produced any evidence of their innocence except the devil of allegation. Therefore, the appellants have rendered themselves liable for penal action under Section 112(a)/(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. None of the co-noticees have retracted their statements. All the existing evidences are against the appellants. Ms. Nazeem was an abetter in the business of gold smuggling by her husband as she tactfully supported him. She was involved with the activity of smuggling of her husband by travelling abroad, having properties in her name - Therefore, the Revenue has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant with circumstantial evidences, the penalties are rightly imposed on the appellants - Decided against assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the penalties imposed under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Validity of the evidence and statements used to implicate the appellants.
3. Role and identification of the appellants in the smuggling operation.
4. Procedural fairness and the right to cross-examine witnesses.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Penalties Imposed:
The appellants, Abdulla Gani and Smt. T. Nazeem, challenged the penalties of Rs. 7.5 crore and 50 lakhs respectively imposed under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. These penalties were related to the confiscation of 750 gold bars imported in a concealed manner and other restricted goods imported as unaccompanied baggage of Shri V.P. Bhaskaran. The adjudicating authority passed the impugned order following a remand by the Tribunal, which directed a de novo hearing and conclusion within a reasonable period.

2. Validity of the Evidence and Statements:
The show cause notice and subsequent adjudication relied heavily on the statements of various individuals, including Shri Vijay Panchal, Shri N.J. Khatri, Shri Lekhraj Sardana, and others. The appellants denied any involvement in smuggling activities and claimed that the P.O. Box No. 2235 at Sharjah was used for personal correspondence by multiple individuals. They argued that the statements used against them were not reliable and lacked corroboration. The appellants also emphasized the absence of cross-examination of key witnesses like Shri Khatri and Shri Moidu, which they claimed undermined the credibility of the evidence.

3. Role and Identification of the Appellants:
The investigation revealed that the appellants were allegedly involved in the smuggling operation, with Shri Abdulla Gani identified as a key figure. Witnesses like Shri Narayan J Khatri and Shri V.B. Panchal provided statements implicating the appellants. However, the appellants contended that these identifications were flawed and motivated by ulterior motives. They pointed out inconsistencies and the lack of direct evidence linking them to the smuggled goods. The Revenue argued that the appellants' use of the P.O. Box, their frequent travels abroad, and their substantial wealth indicated their involvement in illegal activities.

4. Procedural Fairness and Right to Cross-examine Witnesses:
The appellants raised concerns about procedural fairness, particularly the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine key witnesses like Shri Moidu and Shri Khatri. They argued that the absence of cross-examination rendered the statements unreliable. The Revenue, on the other hand, maintained that the circumstantial evidence and the chain of events sufficiently established the appellants' guilt. The Tribunal considered these arguments and examined the procedural aspects, including the appellants' anticipatory bail and their subsequent absconding, which the Revenue cited as indicative of guilt.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's judgment addressed the legality of the penalties, the validity of the evidence, the role and identification of the appellants, and procedural fairness. The Tribunal ultimately upheld the penalties, emphasizing the circumstantial evidence and the appellants' actions during the investigation. The judgment highlighted the complexity of the case, the reliance on multiple witness statements, and the procedural challenges faced by the appellants.

← Previous Next →