2017 (4) TMI 784 - HC - Customs

Penalty - smuggling - Is the 2nd respondent tribunal right in attaching importance to the alleged confessional statement of the appellant, especially when the same has been retracted at the earliest point of time and such confessional statement have not been corroborated by any independent evidence? - In a case of this nature, where conspiracy was hatched, as without which this kind of smuggling activities could not be executed, it is only on the basis of corroborating evidences as well as circumstantial evidences, either the prosecution or the Adjudicating Authority can build their case. Here in the case on hand, the entire conspiracy since had been proved beyond doubt before the criminal Court as all of them except the appellant had pleaded guilty, it cannot be said that the conspiracy had not been proved. Held that - After appreciating the evidences and the failure on the part of the prosecution in proving their case beyond reasonable doubt i.e., proving the link of the appellant with the team to have hatched the conspiracy and executed the smuggling activity, the Trial Appellate Court has given an acquittal to the appellant by stating that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Merely, because the other persons had pleaded guilty before the Trial Court and accepted the punishment, that would not have a bearing on the appellant s position, as there is no direct evidence that he had involved in the said activity of smuggling as there was no recovery from the appellant and also the prosecution, as has been rightly found out by the Trial Appellate Court has not proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the Tribunal has erred in giving such a conclusion, confirming the order in original. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Validity of the reliance on the appellant's confessional statement, especially after its retraction.
3. Impact of the appellant's acquittal in the criminal case on the adjudication order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962:

The appellant was penalized with ?10 lakhs under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, following the confiscation of ?1,43,452 and a cell phone worth ?6,000 under Section 111(d), (l), and (m) of the Act. The Customs authorities intercepted a vehicle near Chennai harbor, recovering 900 gold biscuits and arresting several individuals, including the appellant. The Adjudicating Officer relied heavily on confessional statements, including that of the appellant, to establish a conspiracy to smuggle gold. Despite the appellant's retraction of his confessional statement, the Adjudicating Officer dismissed it as an afterthought and imposed the penalty. The Tribunal upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal.

2. Validity of the reliance on the appellant's confessional statement, especially after its retraction:

The appellant argued that his confessional statement given under Section 108 of the Customs Act was retracted at the earliest opportunity and should not have been solely relied upon to impose the penalty. The appellant's counsel emphasized that retracted confessional statements lack evidentiary value unless corroborated by independent evidence. The appellant's retraction was dismissed by the Adjudicating Officer as an afterthought, and the Tribunal upheld this view without considering the retraction's validity. The court noted that the appellant's involvement was primarily inferred from his confessional statement and not from any direct evidence or recovery of contraband from him.

3. Impact of the appellant's acquittal in the criminal case on the adjudication order:

The appellant was acquitted by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.A.No.135 of 2011, on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The acquittal was based on the lack of evidence linking the appellant to the conspiracy and discrepancies in the prosecution's case. The court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in GopalDas Udhavdas Ahuja Vs Union of India, which held that departmental adjudication cannot stand against an acquittal by a criminal court on the same set of facts. The court found that the Tribunal erred in confirming the Adjudicating Officer's order based on the retracted confessional statement and circumstantial evidence, which were insufficient to establish the appellant's guilt.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the appellant's acquittal in the criminal case, based on the same set of facts and circumstances, rendered the adjudication order unjust, unfair, and oppressive. The Tribunal's reliance on the retracted confessional statement and the corroborative statements of other accused was insufficient to uphold the penalty. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and answering the questions of law in favor of the appellant.