2007 (8) TMI 288 - AT - Customs

Seizure of foreign currency form one person - Penalty imposed on appellant on basis of statement of that co-accused that appellant gave that money to him for sending to Dubai appellant submission is that he has not handed over the money to him, is acceptable - It is well settled law that the statement of co-accused unless corroborated in material particular, cannot be made the sole basis for conviction - personal penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside

Summary

Issues: Challenge to personal penalty under Section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on the appellant under Section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved the interception of an individual by DRI officers with a significant amount of currency intended to be sent abroad. The individual implicated the appellant as the source of the money. However, the appellant denied involvement and stated not meeting the individual for several years. The sole evidence against the appellant was the statement of the intercepted individual, which was akin to a statement of a co-accused. The Tribunal emphasized that such statements, without corroboration, cannot be the sole basis for conviction, as per established legal principles.

2. The adjudicating authority had considered the appellant's past conduct and the Enforcement Directorate's decision to drop charges based solely on the intercepted individual's statement. The Tribunal found the past conduct irrelevant for imposing the penalty and noted that the Enforcement Directorate had also highlighted the lack of substantial evidence beyond the intercepted individual's statement. The Tribunal held that relying solely on the statement without corroboration was insufficient to establish guilt.

3. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the personal penalty imposed on the appellant and allowed the appeal. The decision was based on the insufficiency of evidence and the legal principle that statements of co-accused require corroboration to serve as the primary basis for conviction. The judgment underscored the importance of corroborative evidence in establishing guilt and highlighted the need for a robust evidentiary foundation in penalty proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962.