2000 (7) TMI 180 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Absolute confiscation of gold under Section 111(d) and (e) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Imposition of penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act.
3. Validity of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
4. Allegation of coercion and torture in obtaining statements.
5. Entitlement to redeem confiscated goods under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Absolute Confiscation of Gold:
The Collector of Customs, New Delhi ordered the absolute confiscation of 2 Kgs. of gold seized from Shri Dinesh Khindria and another 2 Kgs. brought by Shri Mohit Thakur under Section 111(d) and (e) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had admitted to the possession and attempted clearance of the gold without payment of duty. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision, finding that the statements corroborated each other and were supported by the recovery of gold from Dinesh Khindria.

2. Imposition of Penalties:
Penalties of Rs. 15,000 each were imposed on the appellants and Shri Mohit Thakur under Section 112 of the Customs Act for abetting the illegal import and clearance of gold. The Tribunal confirmed the penalties, stating that the appellants' actions constituted an attempt to evade customs duty, which justified the penalties imposed.

3. Validity of Statements Recorded Under Section 108:
The appellants argued that the statements recorded under Section 108 were obtained under duress and physical torture. However, the Tribunal found that the detailed and corroborative nature of the statements, along with the recovery of gold, lent credibility to the statements. The Tribunal held that the retraction of the statements did not undermine their validity, as they were corroborated by independent evidence.

4. Allegation of Coercion and Torture:
The appellants claimed that their statements were extracted under physical torture and coercion. The Tribunal dismissed these allegations, noting the lack of substantial evidence to support the claims. The Tribunal emphasized that it was unlikely for Customs officers to resort to coercion in a public place like the arrival hall of the airport. The Tribunal found the retraction letters and telegrams sent by the appellants and their relatives to be an afterthought.

5. Entitlement to Redeem Confiscated Goods:
The appellants contended that the Collector should have allowed them the option to redeem the confiscated gold on payment of a fine under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal acknowledged that the adjudicating officer has the discretion to allow redemption but noted that the gold might have already been disposed of under Section 110 due to the passage of nearly eight years since the seizure. The Tribunal concluded that remanding the matter for redemption would serve no useful purpose and upheld the absolute confiscation.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Collector's order of absolute confiscation of the gold and the imposition of penalties. The appeals were rejected, and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order, confirming the penalties and the confiscation of the gold.