9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the appellant's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act. 2. Charges under Section 9(1)(b) and Section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 3. Quantum of penalty imposed on the appellant. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the appellant's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act: The appellant challenged the impugned order on the grounds that the enforcement authorities did not investigate the case and that the order was based solely on an involuntary confessional statement made before the customs authorities under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The appellant argued that the statement was made while he was in custody and under duress, as evidenced by a medical report and a complaint made to the Magistrate. The adjudicating authority was criticized for ignoring these facts, which suggested the statement was involuntary. The judgment emphasized that the appellant's statement under Section 108 could not form the basis of any finding of contravention as it was not voluntary and lacked corroboration by other evidence. 2. Charges under Section 9(1)(b) and Section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973: Regarding Section 9(1)(d), the judgment found no evidence to sustain the finding of contravention except the appellant's involuntary statement, which was deemed inadmissible. Therefore, the charge under Section 9(1)(d) was not upheld. For Section 9(1)(b), the judgment noted the recovery of Rs. 4 lakhs from the appellant's premises. The appellant did not deny that the amount was received on instructions from Abdul Majeed of Karachi. Hence, the finding of contravention of Section 9(1)(b) to the extent of Rs. 4 lakhs was sustained. The adjudicating officer was advised to have sought further explanation from the appellant regarding the seized amount independently of the involuntary statement. 3. Quantum of penalty imposed on the appellant: The appellant's counsel argued for a reduction in the penalty, citing that the appellant was merely a conduit and not the main operator, had no means to pay the penalty, and that the confiscation of Rs. 4 lakhs already penalized him. The judgment acknowledged these points and found merit in reducing the penalty. It was decided that reducing the penalty from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 10,000, which the appellant had already paid as a pre-deposit, would meet the ends of justice. The appeal was partly allowed, and the pre-deposit was treated as the full payment of the penalty.
|
