1990 (2) TMI 181 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of personal penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act on the appellant.
- Reliability of the statement given by the appellant under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
- Liability of the appellant to be penalized under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Imposition of Personal Penalty
The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 5,000 under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The officers conducted a search at the residential and godown premises of Yusuf, where synthetic fabrics of foreign origin were found. Md. Alamgir, son of Yusuf, failed to provide evidence of legal possession of the fabrics. The goods were seized, and Md. Alamgir admitted to receiving the goods for illegal business. The appellant contended that the penalty was unjust as the house belonged to Yusuf, the father, and there was no corroborating evidence against the appellant. However, the Collector found the appellant and his brother involved in storing and dealing with the contraband goods, upholding the penalty.

Issue 2: Reliability of the Appellant's Statement
The appellant argued that his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was not taken on oath or affirmation, making it unreliable. However, the law does not mandate such statements to be sworn. The appellant's statement, given voluntarily, indicated his involvement in the business with his brother and ownership of the seized goods. The fact that neither his brother nor father claimed the goods supported the appellant's statement. The circumstances corroborated the appellant's claim, leading to the conclusion that he was liable for the penalty under Section 112(b), although the penalty amount was reduced due to his young age and student status.

Issue 3: Liability of the Appellant
The Tribunal determined that the appellant's statement was voluntary and truthful, indicating his association with the contraband goods. The lack of claims by his family members further supported his ownership of the seized goods. Despite being a student, the appellant was found to be involved in storing and dealing with the goods, justifying the penalty. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, but the penalty amount was reduced from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 3,000 considering the appellant's circumstances.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the imposition of the penalty on the appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, finding his statement reliable and indicative of his involvement in the illegal business. The reduction in the penalty amount reflected the appellant's young age and student status, despite his liability for the offense.