2017 (5) TMI 1071 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 114 of CA, 1962 - abetting or exporting of foreign currency - Held that - there is nothing indicative that these appellants had abetted the doing or omission of an Act which would render the goods liable for confiscation u/s 113 - there is no concrete evidence against appellants as to come to the conclusion that they had in fact provided foreign exchange which was sought to be illegally exported and the entire case is built upon the statement of Shri Mohd. Aziz who is co-accused - penalties not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty under Section 114 of Customs Act, 1962 on appellants based on statements of co-accused.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Imposition of Penalties under Section 114 of Customs Act, 1962
The case involved two appellants contesting penalties imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 based on statements of a co-accused, Sri Mohd. Aziz, who was found with concealed foreign currency at the airport. The adjudicating authority relied on statements of Sri Mohd. Aziz implicating the appellants in the illegal export of foreign currency. However, during cross-examination, Sri Mohd. Aziz denied knowing one of the appellants, creating confusion regarding the appellants' involvement. The Departmental representative highlighted findings indicating the involvement of another individual, Mohd. Ali Khan Siddique, in illegal transactions, but the evidence against the appellants was primarily based on the statements of Sri Mohd. Aziz.

Issue 2: Reliance on Co-Accused Statements
The Tribunal analyzed the applicability of Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, emphasizing that penalties can only be imposed if an individual abets an act that renders goods liable for confiscation under Section 113. The Tribunal noted the lack of concrete evidence against the appellants, with the case primarily built on the statements of a co-accused. Referring to precedent, the Tribunal highlighted that statements of co-accused must be corroborated by material facts and cannot be solely relied upon for conviction. Citing a relevant judgment, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence to establish guilt.

Conclusion
After careful consideration, the Tribunal found the penalties imposed on the appellants unsustainable due to insufficient evidence and reliance on uncorroborated statements of a co-accused. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and emphasizing the necessity of corroborative evidence in cases involving penalties under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment was pronounced on 04/05/2017 by the Member (Judicial) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad.