9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Validity of the seizure and inculpatory statement. 3. Allegations of coercion and threat during the statement recording. 4. Retraction of the statement and its admissibility. 5. Consideration of evidence and determination of guilt. 6. Reduction of penalty imposed on the appellant. Analysis: The appeal in this case challenges the order of confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962, concerning the seizure of old used garments of foreign origin. The appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the possession of the goods, leading to their seizure by Customs authorities. The appellant later confessed to the offense, which was corroborated by witnesses. The main contention raised by the appellant was the delay in preparing the seizure list and the alleged coercion and threat during the recording of the inculpatory statement. The appellant argued that the statement was neither voluntary nor true, citing a Supreme Court judgment on statements made under coercion. Additionally, the appellant claimed illegal detention exceeding twenty-four hours, violating constitutional provisions. The appellant disowned the goods and deemed the penalty imposed as excessive. The Customs authorities defended the legality of the seizure and the voluntary nature of the statement, emphasizing the lack of explanation for the delayed retraction and the large quantity of goods involved. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the evidence supported the charge against the appellant. Despite the retraction of the statement after several months, the Tribunal deemed the original statement voluntary and true. The Tribunal rejected the claim of coercion and threat, noting the absence of complaints during remand proceedings. The delay in preparing the seizure list was justified due to the large quantity of goods. The Tribunal distinguished the cited Supreme Court judgment, emphasizing the voluntary nature of the appellant's statement in this case. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the charge against the appellant but decided to reduce the penalty imposed to Rs. 1,000 considering the appellant's disownment of the goods and the passage of time since the seizure in 1982. The appeal was dismissed, except for the modification in the penalty amount, thereby balancing the interests of justice in the case.
|
