2017 (8) TMI 300 - AT - Customs

Absolute Confiscation - silver weighing less than 2 kgs. and having no foreign marking - penalty - Held that - The appellant narrated the illegal importation of silver in detail in his statements. The appellant retracted his statement in his reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 07.04.2014. I agree with the finding of the Adjudicating Authority that the retraction of the statement after a lapse of more than 8(eight) months without any cogent reason cannot be accepted - confiscation and penalty justified. Penalties on other persons - Held that - the Adjudicating Authority imposed penalties on other persons, who had not filed any appeal as informed by the Registry. There is no attempt on the part of the appellant to clarify the reason for carrying the imported silver. The submission of the ld.Counsel on behalf of the appellant is without any substance. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of silver weighing less than 2 kgs. with no foreign marking.
2. Procedure for seizure of impugned goods not followed.
3. Retraction of statement by the appellant.
4. Allegation of statement recorded under duress and coercion.
5. Applicability of case laws in the present case.
6. Imposition of penalties on other persons.

Analysis:
1. The appellant argued that confiscation of silver weighing less than 2 kgs. with no foreign marking should be set aside, citing relevant case laws. However, the Commissioner(Appeals) verified the sampling procedure and confirmed its compliance, leading to the dismissal of this argument.

2. The appellant claimed that the investigating officer did not follow the correct procedure for seizing the goods. The Commissioner(Appeals) confirmed the adherence to the prescribed procedure, as verified by the Forbesgunj Customs Division, thereby rejecting this claim.

3. The appellant initially admitted to the illegal importation of silver in his statement but later retracted it in response to the Show Cause Notice. The Adjudicating Authority found the retraction after a considerable period without a valid reason unacceptable, leading to the justification of the confiscation and imposition of penalties.

4. The appellant alleged that the statement was obtained under duress and coercion, but failed to provide evidence to support this claim. Consequently, the confiscation of the imported silver was deemed justified, and the penalty imposition was upheld.

5. The case laws cited by the appellant were deemed inapplicable to the current case by the Tribunal. The Tribunal distinguished the circumstances of the cited cases from the present situation, highlighting the differences in each case's facts and findings.

6. The Tribunal noted that penalties were imposed on individuals who did not file appeals, and the appellant failed to clarify the reason for carrying the imported silver. Consequently, the Tribunal found the appellant's arguments lacking substance and dismissed the appeal accordingly.