2017 (3) TMI 1346 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty u/s 112 of the CA, 1962 - penalty on Shri Binod Kumar Yadav on the basis of the statement of a co-accused - smuggling - Betel-nuts - Held that - it was found that the place of loading was Kuwari, which is not a Betel nut growing/trading area. And it was concluded that the goods were smuggled from Indo-Nepal border. It is significant to note that nobody claimed the ownership of the seized Betel nuts - there is no dispute that Shri Binod Kr.Yadav is the proprietor of Yadav Transport. The investigating officer recovered various documents, which has been discussed at length above. The ld.Counsel has not refuted the findings of the adjudicating authority except that the statement of the co-accused has no value in the eye of law. There are various materials available on record apart from the statements to implicate the appellant, therefore, the imposition of penalty is warranted - penalty on Shri Binod Kumar Yadav upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on appellants for smuggling Betel nuts.

Analysis:
The case involved multiple appellants appealing against penalties imposed under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for smuggling Betel nuts. The facts revealed that three trucks loaded with Betel nuts were intercepted and seized by DRI officers, leading to penalties on the appellants. The appellants argued that they had no knowledge of the smuggled goods, citing cases to support their claims. However, the adjudicating authority found discrepancies in their statements, indicating involvement in smuggling activities. The drivers failed to identify the loading place accurately, and it was established that the goods were smuggled from the Indo-Nepal border. Despite claims of innocence, the drivers and owner of the vehicle were found to be complicit in the smuggling operation.

The advocate for the appellants contended that penalties based on co-accused statements were unjust, particularly in the case of one appellant who was the proprietor of a transport company. However, the tribunal upheld the penalties, noting various materials implicating the appellants beyond just the statements. The lack of cooperation with the investigating officer further justified the penalties imposed. The penalties on two appellants were reduced, but the penalty on the proprietor of the transport company was upheld, emphasizing his active participation in the smuggling operation. The tribunal concluded by reducing penalties for two appellants and rejecting the appeal of the transport company proprietor.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld penalties imposed under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellants involved in the smuggling of Betel nuts. Despite arguments of lack of knowledge and reliance on co-accused statements, the tribunal found sufficient evidence to support the penalties. The reduction of penalties for some appellants reflected considerations of their roles in the smuggling operation, while the penalty on the transport company proprietor was maintained due to his active involvement.