1993 (6) TMI 101 - CGOVT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Confiscation of gold biscuits and imposition of penalty.
2. Contradictions in the evidence and testimonies.
3. Application of the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of probability.
4. Voluntariness of the respondent's statement.
5. Legitimacy of the Panchnama and the jeweller's certificate.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation of Gold Biscuits and Imposition of Penalty:

The case revolves around the recovery of twenty foreign-marked gold biscuits from the respondent's baggage on 9-4-1988. The Original Authority confiscated the gold and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The Appellate Authority set aside the penalty, citing contradictions in the evidence. The Government, however, found that the recovery was legitimate and the respondent admitted the recovery in his immediate statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Government restored the Original Authority's order, emphasizing that the respondent knowingly attempted to smuggle the gold biscuits into the country.

2. Contradictions in the Evidence and Testimonies:

The Appellate Authority noted contradictions in the jeweller's certificate and the Panchnama, and discrepancies in the testimonies of the seizing officers. The Government argued that these were minor contradictions and did not negate the substantial evidence of the Panchnama and the respondent's voluntary statement. The Government held that the minor discrepancies in timings and dates did not materially affect the facts of the case and were likely due to bona fide errors or the formalities extending into the next day.

3. Application of the Standard of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt vs. Preponderance of Probability:

The Appellate Authority applied the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which the Government found erroneous. In departmental proceedings, the appropriate standard is the preponderance of probability. The Government cited Supreme Court decisions to support that the legal proof required is not necessarily perfect but should establish such degrees of probabilities that a prudent man may believe in the existence of the fact in issue. The Government concluded that the evidence against the respondent was overwhelming and did not warrant the benefit of the doubt.

4. Voluntariness of the Respondent's Statement:

The respondent claimed his statement was recorded under duress and later retracted it. The Government found this claim unconvincing, noting that the statement was in the respondent's handwriting, contained details only he would know, and was retracted only after a significant delay. The Government cited case law to emphasize that a retraction must be corroborated by evidence, which was lacking in this case. The Government concluded that the statement was voluntary and true, rejecting the respondent's plea as an afterthought.

5. Legitimacy of the Panchnama and the Jeweller's Certificate:

The respondent argued that the Panchnama was fabricated, pointing to the jeweller's certificate dated 10-4-1988. The Government found no basis for this claim, explaining that the gold was sealed on 9-4-1988, and the certificate, dated 10-4-1988, only certified the gold's purity. The Government suggested that any discrepancies in dates were due to the formalities extending past midnight. The Panchnama and the respondent's immediate statement were considered credible evidence of the recovery.

Conclusion:

The Government set aside the Appellate Authority's order and restored the Original Authority's decision, upholding the confiscation of the gold biscuits and the imposition of the penalty. The Government found that the evidence against the respondent was substantial, the contradictions in the testimonies were minor, and the respondent's statement was voluntary. The standard of proof applicable was the preponderance of probability, and the respondent's plea for the benefit of the doubt was rejected. The Government concluded that the respondent had knowingly attempted to smuggle the gold biscuits into the country and must suffer the consequences.