1987 (12) TMI 182 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of trucks.
2. Imposition of penalties on appellants Santokh Singh and Rajbir Singh.
3. Adequacy and reliability of evidence.
4. Legal validity of the confessional statements.
5. Compliance with Section 115 of the Customs Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation of Trucks:
The appeals challenged the confiscation of two trucks under the order of the Additional Collector of Customs. The trucks were intercepted carrying textiles of foreign origin, and the goods were seized under the belief that they were liable for confiscation under the Customs Act. The appellant Santokh Singh had purchased the trucks in the names of his son and wife, but he was in control of them and hired them out. The adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of the trucks but allowed redemption upon payment of a fine.

2. Imposition of Penalties on Appellants:
The Additional Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 on Santokh Singh and Rs. 1,50,000 on Rajbir Singh. The appellants contested the penalties, arguing a lack of evidence connecting them to the contraband goods. The authority relied on various statements, including those of drivers and cleaners, which implicated Santokh Singh in knowingly using the trucks for smuggling. For Rajbir Singh, the penalty was based on his presence at the loading site and his subsequent abscondence.

3. Adequacy and Reliability of Evidence:
The appellant Santokh Singh argued that the evidence against him was primarily from co-accused or accomplices, which lacked independent corroboration. The tribunal noted that the statements of drivers Manilal and Ram Swaroop, as well as cleaner Kallu, were consistent and credible. Santokh Singh did not seek cross-examination of these witnesses, and their statements were not retracted. The tribunal found this evidence sufficient to establish the guilt of Santokh Singh.

4. Legal Validity of the Confessional Statements:
Santokh Singh retracted his confessional statement, claiming it was obtained under duress. However, the tribunal observed that his initial confession was not retracted, and the retraction of the second statement was delayed and only occurred after the show cause notice was issued. The tribunal found the confessional statements credible and supported by other evidence, thus upholding their validity.

5. Compliance with Section 115 of the Customs Act:
The appellant argued that the confiscation order did not specify the clause under Section 115 under which it was made, rendering it invalid. The tribunal clarified that the confiscation was under Section 115(2), which allows for redemption upon payment of a fine. The tribunal found no merit in the argument that the order was based on assumptions and presumptions, as there was ample evidence to support the finding that Santokh Singh knowingly used the trucks for smuggling.

Conclusion:
The tribunal upheld the confiscation of the trucks and the penalties imposed on both appellants. It found the evidence against Santokh Singh, including the statements of drivers and cleaners and his own confessional statements, to be credible and sufficient. For Rajbir Singh, the tribunal considered his presence at the loading site and his abscondence as significant evidence of his involvement. The appeals were rejected, affirming the order of the Additional Collector of Customs.

← Previous Next →