1989 (7) TMI 236 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of personal penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appellant, a Police Sub-Inspector, was charged with being involved in acquiring, removing, and concealing VCRs made in Japan. The charge was based on events where the appellant seized VCRs from an oil tanker and an open room, and two individuals implicated him. The Customs Department issued a notice to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act.

2. The appellant denied the allegations, arguing that the evidence against him was hearsay as it relied on statements made by individuals who claimed the goods belonged to the appellant based on information from a police constable. The appellant highlighted his clean record and the lack of direct involvement of customs officers in the seizures made by him.

3. The Respondent supported the penalty, stating that the individuals' statements were credible and corroborated each other. They argued that the appellant surrendered the goods to avoid suspicion and that there was no reason to doubt the witnesses' credibility.

4. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was responsible for both seizures and had reported them to the customs authorities. The evidence against the appellant was primarily based on statements made by individuals who were told by a constable that the goods belonged to the appellant.

5. The Tribunal found that the statements against the appellant were hearsay and lacked corroborative evidence. The constables denied implicating the appellant, casting doubt on the reliability of the witnesses. The Tribunal emphasized that hearsay evidence is not admissible to establish guilt.

6. The Tribunal observed that the appellant's actions, such as seizing the goods and reporting them to customs, were inconsistent with someone involved in smuggling activities. The appellant's conduct, including producing the witnesses before customs officers, was deemed contrary to his alleged involvement.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the evidence against the appellant was insufficient to hold him liable for the penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the order imposing the penalty of Rs. 2500 on the appellant.

This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, evidence, and findings in the judgment regarding the imposition of a personal penalty under the Customs Act on the appellant.