2014 (5) TMI 602 - HC - Customs

Penalty - Diamonds recovered from aircraft confiscated - Tribunal reduced penalty - assessee claims complete exoneration - Held that - ground engineer working in the Air India was accused of smuggling of goods namely, diamonds out of India - One tool which was hidden in the socks on the left leg of Paowala was seized. This tool was from the toolkit of the Aircraft Maintenance Department of the Indian Airlines. The tool therein was meant for opening and closing of the aircraft panel. That was stated to be handed by copassenger - Paowala and the appellant arrived at Mumbai by a flight from Hyderabad. That flight from Hyderabad to Mumbai was operated as IC 117 but using the same aircraft. That is how Paowala narrated the entire case in his version. This is how the name of the appellant surfaced and that the seizure was affected of the diamonds as well. The diamonds were valued at approximately ₹ 5.24 crores. The department therefore relied not only on the statement of Paowala which is stated to be retracted but other materials in the form of identification carried out by a travel agent. The place was also identified and the recovery was at the instance of the present appellant. It is in these circumstances, that the Tribunal found that there is no prejudice caused to the appellant - This is not a case of the appellant being proceeded only on the alleged retracted confession of Paowala. Once there was independent material to support the charge, then, this is not a fit case for interference in our appellate jurisdiction - No substantial question of law arises - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty based on a retracted confessional statement without independent corroboration.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice due to denial of cross-examination of co-noticees.
3. Comparison with a precedent involving cross-examination rights.
4. Allegations of smuggling diamonds and subsequent legal proceedings.
5. Evaluation of prejudice and lack of substantial question of law.

Imposition of Penalty Based on Retracted Statement:
The appellant argued for complete exoneration, claiming the penalty was based on a retracted confessional statement without independent corroboration. The Tribunal reduced the penalty to Rs.10 lakhs, but the appellant contended that the case was similar to the co-noticee's and raised substantial questions of law. The Tribunal's decision was challenged due to the lack of independent corroboration to the retracted statement, leading to an error in upholding the penalty order.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant further contended that the denial of cross-examination of co-noticees violated the principles of natural justice. The appellant sought permission for cross-examination in response to the show cause notice, which was denied. This denial was considered a violation of natural justice, emphasizing the importance of allowing cross-examination for a fair legal process.

Comparison with Precedent on Cross-Examination Rights:
The judgment referenced a previous case involving cross-examination rights, highlighting the importance of providing an opportunity for cross-examination when statements of individuals are relied upon. The comparison emphasized the need to avoid prejudice and ensure a fair legal procedure by allowing the appellant to cross-examine relevant individuals.

Allegations of Smuggling Diamonds and Legal Proceedings:
The case involved allegations of smuggling diamonds, where a ground engineer was accused of attempting to smuggle goods out of India. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted an individual at the airport, leading to the seizure of diamonds valued at approximately Rs.5.24 crores. The legal proceedings relied on statements, identification, and recovery of materials implicating the appellant in the smuggling case.

Evaluation of Prejudice and Lack of Substantial Question of Law:
The judgment concluded that no prejudice was caused to the appellant despite the retraction of the statement by the individual involved in smuggling. The presence of independent material supporting the charges against the appellant led to the dismissal of the appeal. The court found no substantial question of law raised by the appellant, as the case did not solely rely on the retracted confession but had additional evidence supporting the charges.