2015 (8) TMI 819 - AT - Customs

Imposition of Penalty for abetting of smuggling of Vitamin B1 Vide impugned order, adjudicating authority imposed penalty on each appellant under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962 Held that - Appellant-2 admitted purchasing of Vitamin B1 from Appellant-1 Admittedly said vitamin B1 was imported and appellant-2had not asked for bill of entry for these materials nor has he issued any bills for sale of these goods Settled position that confessional statements recorded by custom officer was valid piece of evidence for proceedings under Customs Act Thus, case against Appellant-2 of aiding and abetting of smuggling of Vitamin B1 was clearly established as he has dealt with smuggled goods, by undertaking resale after import Appelant-1 has also in his confessional statement admitted to having undertaken smuggling of Vitamin B1 and tetracycline hydro chloride under cover of paraffin wax Therefore, imposition of penalty on Appellat-1 and appellant-2 under Section 112(a) cannot be faulted at all Decided against Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of penalty under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on two individuals for aiding and abetting smuggling of Vitamin B-1.
- Validity of retracted statements obtained under duress and their evidentiary value.
- Allegation of abetment by one individual in smuggling activities.

Analysis:

1. Imposition of Penalty under Customs Act:
The appellants challenged the penalty imposed under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for aiding and abetting smuggling of Vitamin B-1. The case involved the import of Vitamin B-1 under the cover of Paraffin Wax by M/s. Plus Point Enterprises. Shri Kaushik G. Pandya admitted to purchasing the smuggled goods and dealing in their resale without proper documentation. The Tribunal found that the confessional statements recorded by the customs officer were valid evidence under the Customs Act. As Shri Kaushik G. Pandya was involved in the resale of smuggled goods, the penalty imposed on him was deemed appropriate under the law.

2. Validity of Retracted Statements:
The appellant, Shri Kaushik G. Pandya, claimed that his statements were obtained under duress and retracted his confession. However, the Tribunal noted that the retraction made after being remanded to judicial custody was deemed an afterthought. The retraction was addressed to a different authority than the one who recorded the original statement, which, as per legal precedent, did not nullify the original statement. The detailed nature of the confessional statement, recorded in Gujarati by Pandya himself, further undermined the claim of coercion. The Tribunal held that the retracted statement lacked credibility and upheld the evidentiary value of the original confession.

3. Allegation of Abetment in Smuggling:
Regarding the allegation of abetment by Shri Anwar Shaikh in smuggling activities, the Tribunal found substantial evidence supporting his involvement. Shri Anwar Shaikh admitted to smuggling Vitamin B-1 and tetracycline hydrochloride under the guise of Paraffin Wax, with corroborating statements from other involved parties. The Tribunal concluded that the imposition of penalty on Shri Anwar Shaikh under Section 112(a) was justified based on the evidence presented.

In conclusion, after thorough consideration of the factual and legal aspects of the case, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them accordingly. The judgment highlighted the importance of valid confessional statements as evidence in customs proceedings and upheld the penalties imposed on the individuals involved in aiding and abetting smuggling activities.