1985 (9) TMI 226 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of 55,600 Y.K.K. zip fasteners of Japanese origin.
2. Imposition of fines and penalties on respondents.
3. Validity of the purchase invoice produced by the respondents.
4. Voluntariness and credibility of the statements made by the respondents.
5. Board's consideration of evidence and circumstances.
6. Option to redeem confiscated goods.
7. Penalties imposed on individual respondents.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Confiscation of 55,600 Y.K.K. zip fasteners of Japanese origin
The Additional Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Madurai, confiscated 55,600 Y.K.K. zip fasteners of Japanese origin under Sec. 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Sec. 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The Central Board of Excise and Customs reversed this order, but the Government of India initiated suo moto proceedings in revision.

Issue 2: Imposition of fines and penalties on respondents
The Additional Collector imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in lieu of confiscation of car MDO 5022 under Sec. 125, and penalties of Rs. 10,000/- each on respondents Mittalal and Parasmal, Rs. 5,000/- on respondent Ramdoss Alias Kannan, and Rs. 1,000/- on Ganesa Thevar under Sec. 112 of the Act. The Board's reversal was challenged, and the Tribunal ultimately upheld the penalties with some modifications.

Issue 3: Validity of the purchase invoice produced by the respondents
The respondents claimed they purchased the zip fasteners from M/s. Shankerjee Moolchand at Madras under invoice No. 851, dated 9-11-1979. However, the invoice was produced only on 19-12-1979, 36 days after the seizure. The Tribunal found this delay unexplained and questioned the invoice's authenticity, stating that the Board failed to consider this critical delay.

Issue 4: Voluntariness and credibility of the statements made by the respondents
The respondents argued that their inculpatory statements were made under coercion and were not voluntary. However, the Tribunal found the statements to be true and voluntary, noting that retractions were made belatedly and without convincing reasons. The Tribunal also noted that the language similarity in the statements was due to oversight by a common officer, which did not undermine their credibility.

Issue 5: Board's consideration of evidence and circumstances
The Tribunal criticized the Board for not considering the non-production of the invoice for 36 days and for not appreciating the incriminating statements and other evidence against the respondents. The Tribunal found that the Board's order was cryptic and lacked reasoning.

Issue 6: Option to redeem confiscated goods
The Tribunal decided that the interests of justice would be met by allowing the respondents to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of a fine. Specifically, it directed that 3,76,000 zips be permitted to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 15,000/- under Sec. 125 of the Act.

Issue 7: Penalties imposed on individual respondents
- Parasmal: The Tribunal set aside the penalty on Parasmal, giving him the benefit of the doubt as he was away from Madurai when the goods were received.
- Mittalal: The penalty on Mittalal was reduced to Rs. 1,500/- considering that Ganesa Thevar, the landing agent, was let off with a nominal penalty.
- Ramdoss Alias Kannan and Ganesa Thevar: The penalties imposed on them were upheld.
- Rajaram: Since there was no appeal from Rajaram, the penalty of Rs. 1,000/- imposed by the Additional Collector stood.

The Tribunal concluded by setting aside the Board's order, upholding the Additional Collector's order regarding the confiscation of the goods, and making specific modifications to the penalties and redemption options.