9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal against order imposing fine and penalty under Customs Act, 1962. - Interpretation of provisions regarding attempted export of goods and confiscation. - Validity of inculpatory statement and evidence supporting attempted illegal export. - Reduction in quantum of fine and penalty. Analysis: The appeal in this case was against an order imposing a fine and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant challenged the order of the Collector of Customs, Cochin, which imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 in lieu of confiscation of 53 packages of general merchandise valued at Rs. 96,955, along with a personal penalty of Rs. 10,000. The appellant contended that once a "Let Export" order is granted by the competent authority, the goods become exported goods and are not liable to be confiscated as "goods attempted to be exported" under Section 113(b) of the Act. The appellant also argued that the inculpatory statement recorded from him had no evidentiary value as it was retracted and lacked voluntariness. Additionally, the appellant disputed the reliance on the statement of another individual, contending it was general and vague. The appellant further argued that the mere presence of goods in a container destined for South Africa did not imply illegal export. The Tribunal considered these arguments along with the submissions by the learned S.D.R. The Tribunal held that the offense of attempting to export goods in contravention of the law is complete under Section 113(d) of the Act, rendering the goods liable to confiscation and imposing penal consequences under Section 114, irrespective of whether the goods were successfully exported. The Tribunal cited a Full Bench ruling of the Calcutta High Court to support this interpretation. The Tribunal emphasized that the liability for personal penalty arises as soon as the goods incur liability for confiscation, even if the confiscation is not enforceable after actual export. The Tribunal distinguished a previous ruling of the Madras High Court, stating it did not apply to the question of confiscability of goods attempted to be exported illegally. Regarding the evidence of attempted illegal export, the Tribunal found the inculpatory statement recorded from the appellant to be voluntary and true, despite a belated retraction. The Tribunal also considered the corroborative statement of another individual, concluding that the goods were indeed attempted to be exported to South Africa in contravention of the law. Consequently, the order of confiscation was upheld. The appellant's plea for a reduction in the quantum of fine and penalty was partially accepted, reducing the fine to Rs. 20,000 and the penalty to Rs. 5,000. The appeal was dismissed except for the modification in the quantum of fine and penalty.
|
