1985 (12) TMI 216 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Transfer of Revision Application to Tribunal
2. Confiscation and penalty imposed by Additional Collector
3. Legal evidence against the appellant
4. Ex parte order contention
5. Value of retracted statements
6. Admissibility of co-accused statements
7. Corroboration of evidence
8. Confiscation of currency and penalty amount

Transfer of Revision Application to Tribunal:
The Revision Application filed against the Order No. 3A of 1980 was transferred to the Tribunal for appeal, as per statutory provisions.

Confiscation and penalty imposed by Additional Collector:
Customs officers seized gold bars from individuals who revealed receiving them from the appellant. The Additional Collector ordered confiscation of the gold bars and currency found, imposing penalties on the appellant and another individual. The Board confirmed this decision after the appellant's appeal.

Legal evidence against the appellant:
Appellant's counsel argued lack of legal evidence implicating the appellant in the offense, claiming statements were coerced and retracted. However, the Tribunal found the appellant's initial statement, along with statements from others, provided sufficient evidence for confiscation and penalty.

Ex parte order contention:
Appellant contended the Board's order was ex parte, denying the opportunity to present arguments. However, the Tribunal considered submissions from both sides and reviewed the case records.

Value of retracted statements:
The appellant's retracted statements alleging coercion lacked specifics, and the Tribunal found them unreliable without corroboration in material particulars.

Admissibility of co-accused statements:
Appellant's counsel argued against the admissibility of co-accused statements, citing a High Court decision. However, the Tribunal held that accomplices' evidence, while requiring corroboration, was admissible and corroborated by the appellant's own statement.

Corroboration of evidence:
The Tribunal upheld the confiscation and penalty based on the appellant's statement and accomplices' evidence, finding no legal infirmity in the Additional Collector's decision.

Confiscation of currency and penalty amount:
The Tribunal set aside the confiscation of currency due to lack of evidence linking it to contraband sales, but upheld the penalty as reasonable given the value of seized goods and appellant's actions. The appellant could reclaim the confiscated amount if the penalty was paid.