2025 (1) TMI 1104 - AT - Customs

Levy of penalty u/s 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act 1962 - abetting the smuggling of gold and his indulgence in dealing with smuggled gold - HELD THAT - From the findings of the ld. adjudicating authority it is observed that except the statements of Shri Pawan Prasad and Smt. Monika Yadav there is no other corroborative evidence to establish the role of the Appellant in the alleged offence. From the Section 112 of the Customs Act 1962 it is observed that penalty can be imposed under this section only when a person commits an act which renders the goods liable for confiscation. In the present case it is observed that the gold recovered from Shri Pawan Prasad and Smt. Monika Yadav has been ordered to be confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act vide the impugned order dated 31.03.2017 and penalty has been imposed on them for the role played by them in the offence. There is no other evidence available on record to implicate the appellant in the alleged offence. The penalty imposed on the Appellant by invoking the provisions of Section 112(a) and (b) of the Act is not sustainable - Appeal allowed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are as follows:

Whether the imposition of a penalty on the Appellant under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly abetting the smuggling of gold and dealing with smuggled gold, is justified?
Whether the statements of co-accused, without the opportunity for cross-examination, can be relied upon to impose a penalty on the Appellant?
Whether there is sufficient corroborative evidence to sustain the allegations against the Appellant?

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Justification of Penalty under Section 112(a) and 112(b)

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, outlines the penalties for improper importation of goods. It applies to individuals who engage in acts that render goods liable for confiscation or who deal with such goods knowing their liability to confiscation.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court observed that the imposition of a penalty requires evidence that the accused committed an act that rendered the goods liable for confiscation. In this case, the gold was confiscated from other individuals, not the Appellant.
Key Evidence and Findings: The primary evidence against the Appellant was the statements of co-accused individuals, which were not corroborated by other evidence.
Application of Law to Facts: The court found that the requirements of Section 112 were not met as there was no direct evidence linking the Appellant to the smuggling activities.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Appellant argued that without corroborative evidence and the opportunity for cross-examination, the statements of the co-accused should not be relied upon. The court agreed with this position.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the penalty under Section 112(a) and 112(b) was not justified and set aside the penalty imposed on the Appellant.

Issue 2: Reliance on Statements without Cross-Examination

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: It is a settled legal principle that statements of co-accused cannot be relied upon without providing an opportunity for cross-examination.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court emphasized the importance of cross-examination to verify the credibility of statements made by co-accused individuals.
Key Evidence and Findings: The adjudicating authority relied solely on the statements of the co-accused, without allowing the Appellant to cross-examine them.
Application of Law to Facts: The court found that the lack of cross-examination opportunity rendered the statements unreliable as evidence against the Appellant.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Appellant's argument that the statements should not be relied upon without cross-examination was upheld by the court.
Conclusions: The court held that the statements could not be used to impose a penalty on the Appellant without corroborative evidence.

Issue 3: Sufficiency of Corroborative Evidence

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Corroborative evidence is necessary to support allegations made against an accused individual.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted the absence of any corroborative evidence beyond the statements of the co-accused.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court found no additional evidence linking the Appellant to the smuggling activities.
Application of Law to Facts: The lack of corroborative evidence was a significant factor in the court's decision to set aside the penalty.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court agreed with the Appellant's contention regarding the insufficiency of evidence.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the penalty could not be sustained due to the absence of corroborative evidence.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "It is a settled position of law that in such circumstances, when statements recorded from the co-accused are the only evidence to implicate another person in that offence, the said statements cannot be relied upon against the person (the appellant in this case) without giving an opportunity for cross-examining the persons who have given the statements implicating the Appellant."
Core Principles Established: The necessity of corroborative evidence and the opportunity for cross-examination when relying on statements of co-accused.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court set aside the penalty imposed on the Appellant due to the lack of corroborative evidence and the failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination.

← Previous Next →