2015 (12) TMI 726 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 114 read with Section 4 of the Antiquities and Art Treasure Act, 1972 - Smuggling of antiques - Held that - Joint operation with the help of CBI was conducted by opening the consignment at IGI Airport Air Cargo wherein it was found that certain items which are antiques and the statement of Shri Nand Ram was recorded. Later on with the help of Shri Nand Ram, the premises at Mahipalpur Extension was interrogated and there also some antiques were found. As per the statement of Shri Nand Ram and Shri Rajeev Gupta it is alleged that the appellant is actively involved in smuggling and the said premises was on rent by the appellant and she is operating from there and Shri Rajeev Gupta are indulged in the activity of smuggling of antiques on the behest of the appellant. - incriminating statement of the appellant. Moreover, the appellant has been penalized only on the basis of statements of recorded by the co-accused. Moreover, the contention of the adjudicating authority that the appellant has taken the premises on rent from Shri Hitender Kumar. Infact, Shri Hitender Kumar was not the owner of the said premises. Therefore, the statement of Shri Hintender Kumar cannot be relied upon and I also find that no other evidence has been produced by the Revenue to implicate the appellant in the alleged activity of smuggling of antiques. As Revenue has failed to produce any positive evidence in corroboration of the statements of the co-noticees to impose penalty on the appellant, therefore, impugned order qua imposing penalty on the appellant is not sustainable. Consequently, the same is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 1962 and Antiquities and Art Treasure Act, 1972 based on alleged involvement in smuggling of antiques.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 4 of the Antiquities and Art Treasure Act, 1972. The case involved a consignment intercepted based on CBI information, revealing stolen antiques instead of declared machine parts. Further investigations led to the discovery of sculptures at different locations implicating the appellant as the mastermind behind the smuggling activity. Statements of individuals, including co-noticees, were crucial in implicating the appellant. However, during the proceedings, Smt. Rama Jain denied involvement and accused others of falsely implicating her. The adjudicating authority relied on the statement of Shri Hitender Kumar regarding the appellant renting premises, but it was later found that Shri Hitender Kumar was not the owner. The appellate tribunal noted the lack of concrete evidence corroborating the statements of co-noticees to implicate the appellant. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant, deeming the order unsustainable.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief. The judgment highlighted the importance of substantial evidence in imposing penalties under the Customs Act and the Antiquities and Art Treasure Act. It emphasized the necessity for corroborative evidence beyond statements of co-noticees to establish guilt in cases of alleged smuggling activities. The tribunal's decision focused on the lack of incriminating statements directly linking the appellant to the smuggling operation, leading to the overturning of the penalty order.