1988 (11) TMI 235 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of joint penalty under Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act
2. Legality of a belated corrigendum apportioning penalty
3. Sufficiency of evidence against the appellant

Analysis:

Issue 1: Imposition of joint penalty under Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act
The appellant challenged the joint penalty imposed under both the Customs Act, 1962, and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The counsel argued that a corrigendum issued after 7 months, apportioning the penalty separately under both Acts, was not legally permissible. The Tribunal held that joint penalties under both Acts are impermissible. The impugned order imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,000 under both Acts was deemed untenable in law. The Tribunal emphasized that the adjudicating authority must indicate the quantum of penalty separately under each Act.

Issue 2: Legality of a belated corrigendum apportioning penalty
The Tribunal noted that the corrigendum issued to apportion the penalty under the two Acts was akin to a review, substituting a paragraph in the original order. It was held that once an order is passed, the adjudicating authority's jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record or clerical mistakes. Therefore, the corrigendum was considered legally untenable. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of maintaining the sanctity of the original order.

Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence against the appellant
Regarding the evidence against the appellant, the Tribunal noted that the only evidence presented was the retracted statement of an individual who claimed to have purchased contraband gold from the appellant. However, this individual later retracted the statement and provided a different version. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of independent investigation prior to adjudication and the absence of substantial evidence linking the appellant to the alleged offense. As the burden of proof lies with the Department, the Tribunal held that the appellant should benefit from the doubt. Consequently, the charge was deemed not sustainable based on the evidence available, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.