9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 for attempted illegal export and concealment of goods. Analysis: The judgment pertains to appeals challenging a penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 for attempted illegal export and concealment of goods. The case involved the recovery of a significant quantity of tanned snake skins from the premises of M/s. Rajathi Agencies, concealed under gunny bundles, leading to suspicion of illegal export. The authorities seized the goods and recorded statements from individuals involved, indicating knowledge and intent for illegal export. The appellants contested the order, questioning the establishment of attempted illegal export and the admissibility of incriminating statements. The appellants argued that the penal provision was not specifically mentioned in the impugned order and that the case of attempted illegal export was not proven. They contended that the seizure was not witnessed by the mahazar witnesses, casting doubt on the establishment of possession by Rajathi Agencies. Additionally, they claimed that mere recovery of goods did not prove knowledge or conscious possession, and retracted statements should not hold evidentiary value. The appellants also challenged the jurisdiction of Customs authorities for seizure outside the Customs area. However, the Senior D.R. asserted the admissibility of incriminating statements and highlighted evidence supporting the charges of illegal export, including the proximity of goods to a port and admission of the export plan. The judge, after considering the submissions, acknowledged the recovery of goods from Rajathi Agencies and the appellants' knowledge of the concealed snake skins. The statements of involved individuals, corroborated by each other, indicated the intent for illegal export. The judge rejected the belated retractions and found the evidence establishing attempted illegal export compelling. The judge dismissed the appellants' arguments regarding the absence of specific penal provision mention, lack of contravention under Customs Act sections, and jurisdictional issues. The judgment upheld the penalty on the appellants, with different amounts imposed based on their involvement. The penalty on M/s. Rajathi Agencies was substantial due to the value of the goods intended for illegal export. Ultimately, the judgment affirmed the impugned order and dismissed the appeals, holding the appellants liable for penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.
|
