9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty by the Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad. 2. Appeal rejection by the Board. 3. Reliance on Police records and evidence. 4. Lack of independent corroboration in the case. 5. Contradictions in witness testimonies. 6. Application of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. Detailed Analysis: The judgment revolves around the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties by the Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad, following a seizure involving the recovery of cash, metallic yarn, wristwatches, and other items from the applicant. The applicant's appeal was rejected by the Board, leading to a revision application challenging the decision. The applicant denied involvement in the seized goods and highlighted discrepancies in the evidence presented, particularly questioning the reliance on Police records without independent corroboration. The government carefully reviewed the case records and noted significant discrepancies, including conflicting testimonies of witnesses involved in the seizure at Dandi. The judgment points out that most of the evidence against the applicant stemmed from Police records and the statement of the Police Inspector, lacking independent corroboration. The lower authorities' heavy reliance on the Police Inspector's diary weakened the case's legal standing, as independent corroboration was missing, rendering the Departmental case weak and legally untenable. The judgment further delves into the attempts made by the original adjudicating authority to establish the genuineness of the panchnama, citing a partial corroboration based on the recovery of foreign goods from the applicant's residential premises. However, the correlation between the goods found in the applicant's house, such as soaps, and the bulk of contraband yarn seized from outside was deemed insufficient, highlighting the lack of necessary corroboration to support the Police version. Moreover, the judgment addresses the contradictions in witness testimonies, emphasizing the significance of the witnesses' statements regarding the applicant's presence during the seizure at Dandi. The judgment concludes that the confiscation of goods is upheld due to the applicant denying ownership of the yarn, while the confiscation of soaps is also upheld under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, as licit acquisition was not proven. However, the imposition of a personal penalty was set aside, granting the applicant the benefit of doubt in connection with the main goods, with a mere warning deemed sufficient for the trivial offense related to the soaps. In conclusion, the revision application was disposed of with the confiscation of goods upheld, penalties set aside, and a warning issued for the minor offense, based on the detailed analysis and findings presented in the judgment.
|
