1987 (11) TMI 228 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:

1. Waiver of prior deposit of penalty.
2. Legality of the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Validity of the Show Cause Notice.
4. Voluntariness and truthfulness of inculpatory statements.
5. Role and culpability of each appellant.
6. Quantum of penalty imposed.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Waiver of Prior Deposit of Penalty:

The appellant in Customs Appeal No. 563/87, Rajan Menon, filed an application for waiver of the prior deposit of a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. The tribunal granted the waiver, noting that Rajan Menon had been a COFEPOSA detenu for nearly one year.

2. Legality of the Penalty Imposed Under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962:

The appeals were against the order of the Collector of Customs, Cochin, dated 7-4-1987, which imposed penalties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each on appellants Haresh Chimanlal Vora and Jayant K. Sanghanee, and Rs. 25,000/- on Rajan Menon under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal confirmed the findings of the adjudicating authority, holding that the evidence and materials on record clearly brought home the charges against the appellants.

3. Validity of the Show Cause Notice:

Appellant Haresh Chimanlal Vora contended that no Show Cause Notice was served on him, rendering the impugned order legally unsustainable. The tribunal rejected this argument, finding that the impugned order and the Show Cause Notice were sent to an address in Bombay where they were received on behalf of the appellant. The tribunal noted that under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 3(c) of the Indian Post Offices Act, there is a statutory presumption that a registered communication sent to a person's address is received by the addressee. The appellant failed to rebut this presumption.

4. Voluntariness and Truthfulness of Inculpatory Statements:

Appellant Jayant Sanghanee argued that his inculpatory statements recorded on 13-1-1986 and 14-1-1986 were neither voluntary nor true, claiming they were made under threat and coercion. The tribunal rejected this claim, noting that the statements were retracted only on 2-8-1986, which was considered a belated retraction and therefore not credible. Similarly, Rajan Menon claimed his inculpatory statement was not voluntary and true. The tribunal found no evidence of coercion and noted that Menon did not mention any threat or coercion before the Judicial Magistrate at the time of remand on 16-1-1986.

5. Role and Culpability of Each Appellant:

- Haresh Chimanlal Vora: The tribunal found that Vora played a major role in the illegal importation of contraband goods. His involvement was corroborated by detailed and comprehensive statements from Jayant Sanghanee and other evidence. Vora's plea that the second statement of Jayant Sanghanee alone implicated him was rejected.

- Jayant Sanghanee: The tribunal noted that Sanghanee's role was primarily to assist Vora. Despite his plea that he was not directly involved, the tribunal found his inculpatory statements to be credible and supported by other evidence. The tribunal also considered the fact that Sanghanee pleaded for leniency during adjudication.

- Rajan Menon: The tribunal acknowledged Menon's minor role compared to Vora and Sanghanee. Menon was implicated by statements from Sanghanee and Kiran Sanghanee. The tribunal also considered Menon's status as a COFEPOSA detenu and his financial condition.

6. Quantum of Penalty Imposed:

- Haresh Chimanlal Vora: The tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 75,000, considering the substantial value of the goods and Vora's major role in the illegal importation.

- Jayant Sanghanee: The penalty was reduced from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 50,000, acknowledging his role as an assistant rather than the main beneficiary.

- Rajan Menon: The penalty was reduced from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 5,000, taking into account his minor role, the fact that he was a COFEPOSA detenu for nearly a year, and his financial condition.

Conclusion:

Except for the modifications in the quantum of penalties, the appeals were otherwise dismissed, confirming the findings of the adjudicating authority against the appellants.

← Previous Next →