2018 (3) TMI 1502 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 112 of CA, 1962 - smuggling of Gold - Held that - there is no statement of the appellant and the penalties stand imposed upon him only on the basis of incriminating statements of the co-noticee. It is well settled law that such statement of the co-noticee cannot be made the sole basis for penalizing a person - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 based on co-noticee's statement without further evidence.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged a penalty of ?5 lakhs imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved Mr. Abdul Satar carrying Gold Bars into India from Dubai without declaring them to Customs authorities. Incriminating statements by Mr. Abdul Satar implicated a person named Shakil as the owner of the goods. Statements from others, including Mr. Zahid Jafar Miya Hasan Miya, linked Mr. Shakil Patel to the smuggling activities. The investigating agency used these statements to implicate Mr. Shakil Patel, leading to the penalty on the appellant.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's entire case was based solely on the statement of a co-noticee without any additional evidence. Despite issuing summons, the appellant's statement was not recorded as he did not comply. The Revenue did not make efforts to approach the appellant in person for his statement. Relying solely on a co-noticee's statement to impose penalties was deemed insufficient under established legal principles.

Considering the lack of corroborative evidence and reliance on the co-noticee's statement alone, the Tribunal found the penalty imposed on the appellant unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty and allowed the appeal, granting any consequential relief to the appellant as per the law. The judgment was pronounced on 09.03.2018.