1986 (7) TMI 279 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 for attempting illegal export of hashish.
2. Evidence connecting the appellant with the illegal export and the quantum of penalty imposed.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Imposition of penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962
The appeal was against the Order of the Collector of Customs imposing a penalty on the appellant for attempting to export hashish illegally. The consignment of frozen fish was found to contain hashish concealed within it, which led to the seizure of the goods. The appellant was allegedly connected to the exporters, M/s. Nigil Exports, and was implicated in the illegal export based on circumstantial evidence. The appellant denied any association with the exporters and claimed mistaken identity. However, witness statements, including those of the van driver and cleaner, linked the appellant to the transportation and unloading of tea chests containing hashish at the cold storage of Nigil Exports. The evidence established the appellant's connection with the exporters and the illegal export attempt.

Issue 2: Evidence connecting the appellant with the illegal export and quantum of penalty
The appellant's defense of mistaken identity was refuted by witness statements identifying him at the scene of the crime. The tribunal noted that circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's association with the exporters and the transportation of tea chests containing hashish, pointed towards his guilt. The tribunal referred to legal precedent emphasizing the significance of false denials in determining guilt in customs cases. Despite the appellant's plea for a reduction in the penalty, the tribunal upheld the penalty of Rs. 50,000 considering the value of the goods involved, the nature of the offense, and the appellant's role in the illegal export. The tribunal concluded that the charge against the appellant was sustainable in law, confirming the penalty imposed.

In conclusion, the tribunal found the appellant complicit in the illegal export of hashish based on the evidence presented, rejecting the defense of mistaken identity. The penalty imposed was deemed appropriate given the seriousness of the offense and the appellant's involvement. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.