9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Penalty imposed under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellants for aiding and abetting in smuggling of gold bars. - Defence plea of appellants regarding the statements recorded under threat and duress, lack of independent corroboration, and deficiencies in the seizure process. - Analysis of the involvement of each appellant in the smuggling operation and their liability for penalty. Issue 1: Penalty Imposed under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act: The Commissioner of Customs imposed a penalty on the appellants for aiding and abetting in the smuggling of 92 gold bars. The appellants contested the basis of their liability for penalty, claiming their statements were recorded under duress. The defence argued that the recovery of gold from one of the appellant's premises lacked proper documentation, rendering the association of the appellants with the smuggled gold doubtful. However, the Commissioner held that the evidence, including the recovery of gold and statements of the accused, was sufficient to establish their involvement in the smuggling operation. The Commissioner found no justification to overturn the penalty under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act. Issue 2: Defence Plea of Appellants and Lack of Corroboration: The appellants disowned any connection with the smuggled gold and alleged that their statements were obtained under coercion. They argued that the statements of co-accused should not be admissible without independent corroboration. The defence also highlighted deficiencies in the seizure process. However, the Commissioner rejected these arguments, emphasizing that the recovery of gold from one appellant's residence, based on information provided by another appellant, established their complicity. The lack of contrary evidence and the detailed corroboration of events led to the dismissal of the defence plea. Issue 3: Involvement of Each Appellant in Smuggling Operation: The analysis of each appellant's role in the smuggling operation revealed crucial details. One appellant was involved in removing the gold bars from the aircraft, while the other provided logistical support and transportation. Despite retractions of statements, the Commissioner found that the sequence of events described by the appellants aligned with the actual recovery of gold. The active participation of both appellants in different stages of the smuggling process, as corroborated by evidence, justified the imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act. The appeals filed by the appellants were deemed meritless and subsequently rejected. This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal intricacies involved in determining liability for smuggling activities and the weight given to corroborative evidence in such cases.
|
