2016 (1) TMI 1050 - AT - Customs

Levy of penalty on G-cardholder of M/s. Quick Clear Agency, holder of CHA licence - involvement in smuggling of goods - appellant contended that he was compelled to give statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 which he retracted. He had nothing to do with the smuggling of the impugned goods. - Held that - a bald retraction without any evidence of threat or coercion does not take away the evidentiary value of a statement recorded under Section 108 Customs Act, 1962. Having regard to the nature of impugned goods and in view of the fact that their value, we are of the view that the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority is not unreasonable or arbitrary. - Levy of penalty confirmed - Decided against the appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of penalty on the appellant for involvement in smuggling activities.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant for his role in smuggling activities. Specific intelligence indicated that intact garments were fraudulently cleared from a location at ICD, Tughlakabad without proper examination by Customs Authority. The appellant, a G-cardholder of a Clearing House Agent (CHA) and a partner in another logistics company, was found to have actively participated in the smuggling operation. He was involved in filing the Bill of Entry, receiving and handling the related documents, arranging trucks, and instructing drivers. Despite initially retracting his statement made under Section 108 of the Customs Act, he later confessed to his involvement in smuggling activities and admitted to previous similar incidents. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was fully aware of the nature of the goods being smuggled and had received a significant amount for his role. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal emphasized that a retraction without evidence of coercion does not diminish the evidentiary value of a statement under Section 108. Considering the substantial value of the smuggled goods and the appellant's active participation, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found no grounds for appellate intervention and dismissed the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key aspects of the case, including the appellant's involvement in smuggling activities, his confession, the evidentiary value of his statement, and the reasoning behind upholding the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority.