2016 (5) TMI 649 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty on the basis of third party statement - Confiscation of goods as prohibited goods - Seizure of 9.340 tons of wood logs purported to be red sanders - samples sent were not of red sanders, goods were wood logs as against declared goods i.e. Plastic pipe in the export documents - Held that - on the basis of statements of various persons involved in attempt of fraudulent export of wood logs as well as confessionary statement of the appellant, it is very clear that role of the appellant in illegal activity is clearly established therefore since prohibited goods liable for confiscation, appellant is also liable for penalty under Section 114(i) and 114AA. On perusal of the Commissioner s order, it is found that he has given proper findings after proper appreciation of facts. Therefore, both the lower authorities correctly and legally imposed penalty under Section 114(i) and 114AA. As regard the quantum of penalty, it is observed that value of the goods i.e. wood logs attempted to be smuggled is ₹ 1.40 Lacs. Considering the value, I am of the view that penalty imposed by the lower authorities is on higher side, therefore in my view penalty of ₹ 50,000/- appears to be proper and reasonable and therefore reduced the penalty from ₹ 1 lacs to ₹ 50,000/-. - Decided partly in favour of appellant

Issues:
1. Confiscation of wood logs and penalty imposition under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Allegations of illegal export and involvement of the appellant.
3. Retraction of statements and cross-examination rights.
4. Adjudication process and findings of lower authorities.
5. Penalty reduction and final decision.

Confiscation of Wood Logs and Penalty Imposition under Customs Act, 1962:
The case involved the illegal export of wood logs under the guise of plastic pipes, leading to the confiscation of the logs valued at Rs. 1,40,100 and the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant under Sections 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the original order of confiscation and penalty, prompting the appellant to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai.

Allegations of Illegal Export and Involvement of the Appellant:
The appellant was implicated in the fraudulent export scheme based on statements from various individuals involved in the transaction. The appellant's role in the illegal activity was established through confessionary statements and corroborating evidence, indicating active involvement in the smuggling of wood logs. The appellant was accused of being part of a scheme to misdeclare wood logs as plastic pipes for export, with forged documents and seals used to facilitate the illegal export.

Retraction of Statements and Cross-Examination Rights:
The appellant's counsel argued that the penalty was imposed based on a third party's statement, which the appellant later retracted. The appellant requested the right to cross-examine other individuals whose statements were used against him, but this request was denied by the Adjudicating authority. The lack of evidence directly linking the appellant to the smuggling attempt was highlighted as a defense against the penalty imposition.

Adjudication Process and Findings of Lower Authorities:
The lower authorities, including the Adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals), found the appellant guilty based on statements and confessionary evidence. The Commissioner's order detailed the alleged involvement of the appellant in the fraudulent export scheme, including the preparation of forged documents and collaboration with other individuals in the illegal activity. The Adjudicating authority's decision to disallow cross-examination was challenged by the appellant, emphasizing the need for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to establish guilt.

Penalty Reduction and Final Decision:
After considering the submissions from both sides and reviewing the evidence, the Appellate Tribunal partially allowed the appeal. While confirming the confiscation of the wood logs and the penalty imposition under Sections 114(i) and 114AA, the Tribunal reduced the penalty amount from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 50,000. The Tribunal acknowledged the value of the smuggled goods but deemed the original penalty amount excessive, leading to the reduction in the final penalty imposed on the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal intricacies surrounding the confiscation of goods, penalty imposition, evidentiary considerations, and the appellate review process in cases of alleged customs violations.

← Previous Next →