2015 (1) TMI 1077 - HC - Customs

Penalty u/s 114 - Whether the first respondent authority and the second respondent Tribunal is correct in holding that the charges of Section 114(i) of Customs Act 1962 is made out in the facts and circumstances of the case against the appellants warranting imposition of penalty against the appellant - Held that - The Adjudicating Authority after considering the allegations in the show cause notice the reply given by the appellant and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant has elaborately discussed about the complexity and the involvement of the appellant in the smuggling of Red Sanders Wooden logs which are prohibited items. - Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act is not inclined to re-appreciate the factual findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority and confirmed by the Tribunal. In the absence of any error of law pointed out by the appellant this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of penalty. - Decided against assessee.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962 for imposing penalty.
2. Reliability of confessional statement retracted by the appellant.
3. Sufficiency of evidence from third parties to establish guilt under Customs Act.
4. Right to be heard before passing an order.
5. Failure to inquire about the alleged mastermind.

Issue 1:
The appellant challenged the imposition of penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, questioning the correctness of the authority's decision. The Adjudicating Authority found the appellant involved in illicit export of Red Sanders Wooden logs, a prohibited item, and imposed a penalty after considering the evidence and statements. The Tribunal upheld this decision after re-evaluating the materials on record, leading to the present appeal.

Issue 2:
The appellant contested the importance given to his confessional statement, which was later retracted and not corroborated by independent evidence. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the retraction, citing the binding nature of the statement made under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal, after considering legal precedents, upheld the penalty based on the appellant's initial statement and involvement in the offense.

Issue 3:
The appellant questioned the sufficiency of evidence from third parties to establish his guilt under the Customs Act. The Adjudicating Authority detailed the role played by the appellant, including his involvement in the smuggling operation. Despite the appellant's denial and lack of vital clues, the Authority found him complicit based on the evidence. The Tribunal, upon re-examination, confirmed the penalty, emphasizing the appellant's role in the offense.

Issue 4:
The appellant raised concerns about not being heard before the order was passed. The Adjudicating Authority provided an opportunity for a personal hearing to the appellant, where his case was considered along with the replies of other co-noticees. The Tribunal's confirmation of the penalty indicated that due process was followed, and the appellant's submissions were duly considered.

Issue 5:
The appellant argued that the authorities failed to inquire about the alleged mastermind, Alibhai, who was considered the mastermind behind the smuggling operation. The Adjudicating Authority discussed the role of Alibhai and the appellant in detail, concluding that the contraband was smuggled under their supervision. The Tribunal's decision to uphold the penalty indicated that the appellant's association with Alibhai was a significant factor in determining his liability.

In conclusion, the High Court declined to re-evaluate the factual findings of the Adjudicating Authority and the Tribunal, as no legal errors were identified by the appellant. The appeal challenging the penalty imposition was dismissed, emphasizing the seriousness of the appellant's involvement in the illicit export of prohibited goods.

← Previous Next →