9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for possession of gold bars; Validity of inculpatory statements; Vagueness of show cause notice; Foreign origin of seized gold bars; Application of Section 123 of the Act; Reliance on inculpatory statements; Previous antecedents of the accused; Quantum of penalty imposed. Analysis: The judgment involves an appeal against penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on two appellants for possession of gold bars. The primary issue revolves around the validity of the inculpatory statements made by the appellants, which were contested by the appellants' counsel on the grounds of coercion and retraction. The court examined the statements given by the appellants and concluded that they were voluntary and true, dismissing the retractions made later. The court emphasized the importance of the statements in establishing the foreign origin of the seized gold bars. The judgment also addresses the contention regarding the vagueness of the show cause notice, with the appellants arguing that the charge was not specific enough. However, the court found that all necessary factual details were clearly set out in the notice, refuting the claim of failure to apply mind by the authorities. The court further delved into the issue of the foreign origin of the gold bars, emphasizing the significance of the inculpatory statements in establishing the illicit acquisition of the gold. Regarding the application of Section 123 of the Act, the court noted that even though it was not invoked, the prohibition on gold importation was clear. The court relied on previous rulings to establish that the burden of proof regarding the foreign origin of seized goods can be discharged by circumstantial evidence. The judgment also discussed the relevance of the purity of the gold bars and the varying sizes and weights in determining their origin, ultimately concluding that these factors did not disprove the foreign origin of the gold. The court also considered the previous antecedents of the accused in relation to the contravention, highlighting that they would only be relevant after establishing the contravention itself. Finally, the judgment addressed the quantum of penalty imposed, reducing the penalty on one appellant to match that of another employee in a similar case. The court confirmed the findings of the impugned order and dismissed the appeals, upholding the penalty on one appellant and reducing it for the other.
|
