1989 (7) TMI 251 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to the correctness and legality of the order in appeal passed by the Additional Collector of Customs
- Confiscation of seized molasses and drums under Sections 113 and 114 of the Customs Act
- Allegation of smuggling and contravention of Customs Act provisions
- Retracted statements of driver and cleaner obtained under duress
- Discrepancies in statements and evidence presented by the appellant
- Justification of redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, contesting the confiscation of seized molasses and drums valued at Rs. 26,000 under Sections 113 and 114 of the Customs Act. The incident involved the interception of a truck carrying the goods near 'no man's land,' leading to the seizure and subsequent legal proceedings. The appellant denied allegations of smuggling and argued that the goods were intended for a Khandsari Unit within India. The appellant further claimed that the statements of the driver and cleaner were obtained under duress, and crucial evidence, such as a letter from the owner of the goods, was not properly considered. The Collector relied on statements and materials before him to uphold the charges against the appellant.

The appellant's representative vehemently argued that the penalty and fine imposed were excessive compared to the actual value of the goods, as indicated in a corrigendum show cause notice. It was contended that the investigating authorities failed to record statements from the owner of the goods, leading to procedural irregularities. The appellant's counsel criticized the Collector for relying heavily on earlier statements of the driver and cleaner, highlighting alleged non-application of mind in the decision-making process.

In response, the respondent supported the Collector's order, emphasizing the delayed submission of retracted statements by the appellant and the absence of crucial evidence supporting the appellant's claims. Discrepancies and contradictions in the appellant's submissions were pointed out, undermining the credibility of the appellant's defense. The respondent argued that the Collector was justified in rejecting the retracted statements and upholding the charges based on the available evidence.

Upon careful consideration of all materials, the Tribunal found the appellant's defense lacking substantiation and credibility. The belated introduction of crucial details and the absence of supporting evidence weakened the appellant's case. The Tribunal upheld the charges of smuggling and contravention of Customs Act provisions, affirming the seizure at 'no man's land.' However, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contention regarding the excessive redemption fine and penalty. The value of the goods was revised based on the corrigendum show cause notice, leading to a reduction in the imposed fines.

Ultimately, the Tribunal partially ruled in favor of the appellant, reducing the redemption fine and penalty to align with the actual value of the goods. Any excess amount paid by the appellant was directed to be refunded within a specified timeframe. With the modifications in the fines, the appeal was dismissed, concluding the legal proceedings in the matter.