9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Allegations of illicit import of goods. 3. Reliability of statements given by accomplices. 4. Validity of the order of the respondent. Analysis: The Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Collector of Customs imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000 on the petitioner under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved two passengers, Mustafa and Pathar, who were interrogated regarding certain packages brought from Penang. Mustafa stated that the goods were handed over to the petitioner by his mother-in-law, while Pathar did not initially implicate the petitioner. The Customs officers found the goods liable for duty but cleared without payment. The respondent concluded that the petitioner was involved in the illicit import based on statements from Mustafa and Pathar. The petitioner denied involvement, stating the goods were for safekeeping. The respondent directed confiscation and imposed a penalty, leading to the challenge in this petition. The key issue revolved around the application of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, which imposes liability on individuals concerned with goods liable for confiscation. The petitioner argued that the respondent's conclusion was not supported by the evidence. Mustafa and Pathar, the accomplices, gave inconsistent statements under coercion and duress, making them unreliable witnesses. The court noted that both accomplices were involved in carrying and depositing the goods, falling under Section 112(b) of the Act. However, the respondent erred in relying on statements recorded without the petitioner's opportunity for cross-examination, rendering the order unsustainable. The judgment referenced a Supreme Court case to distinguish the application of Section 112 from a previous provision under the Sea Customs Act. The court emphasized that mere possession of goods does not automatically imply involvement in illicit activities. In this case, the respondent's conclusion that the petitioner was concerned with the illicit import lacked substantial evidence. The court highlighted that the only established fact was the petitioner's possession of the goods, which alone did not establish culpability under Section 112. The order was deemed vitiated and quashed, granting relief to the petitioner. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned order of the respondent imposing a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment emphasized the importance of reliable evidence and proper application of legal provisions in determining liability for customs violations, ensuring fair treatment and due process for individuals accused of such offenses.
|
