2014 (7) TMI 813 - HC - Customs

Levy of penalty based on statement of a person which was later retracted by that person - recovery of foreign currency equivalent - corroborative evidence - Tribunal found that the present Appellants were in the Security Staff of the Oman Airways. They were, thus, obliged to prevent any illegal activities or anything being carried in the aircraft, illegally. One I. Y. Suleman was apprehended while boarding the flight and foreign currency was recovered. It is in these circumstances that the action as against the Appellants has been upheld. - Held that - All that we are suppose to find out is whether there is any perversity in the findings of the authorities or whether the concurrent findings of fact are vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of record. We do not find that the Tribunal or the authorities have proceeded contrary to law or have in any manner misdirected themselves. - appeals dismissed - decided against the appellants.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order imposing penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 based on a retracted confession.
- Consideration of substantial questions of law regarding the imposition of penalties.
- Analysis of the legal principles related to retracted confessions as evidence.
- Examination of circumstantial evidence and findings of the authorities in imposing penalties.
- Comparison with relevant judgments to determine the applicability of legal principles.

Analysis:
1. The Appeals challenged the penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, based on a retracted confession by Iqbal Yusuf Suleman. The Appellants argued that the orders imposing penalties were flawed as they solely relied on the retracted confession without independent evidence to support it.

2. The Appellants contended that the Appeals raised substantial questions of law, citing the judgment in Vinod Solanki v/s Union of India and a Delhi High Court case. However, the Court found that the penalties were based on incriminating material related to the recovery of foreign currency from Suleman, and not solely on the retracted statements.

3. The Court examined the statements made by Suleman and the role of the Appellants, who were part of the security staff at Oman Airways. It was established that the penalties were imposed based on circumstantial evidence and not just on the retracted confessions, as argued by the Appellants.

4. The judgment in Vinod Solanki v/s Union of India was discussed to clarify the admissibility of retracted confessions as evidence. The Court emphasized that the correctness of findings regarding retracted confessions was crucial in determining guilt and imposing penalties.

5. The Court highlighted the importance of considering the facts and circumstances of each case when applying legal principles related to retracted confessions. In this case, the penalties were upheld based on multiple statements by Suleman, circumstantial evidence, and the active involvement of the Appellants in the incident.

6. The Court differentiated the present case from the Delhi High Court judgment, where the absence of incriminating evidence other than a retracted confession led to an acquittal. In contrast, the Court found sufficient evidence and circumstances to uphold the penalties imposed on the Appellants.

7. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the Appeals did not raise substantial questions of law and dismissed them, emphasizing the importance of considering all evidence and circumstances before challenging penalty orders. No costs were awarded in this judgment.