Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 1990 (2) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1990 (2) TMI 184 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of goods u/s 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Confiscation of Indian currency u/s 121 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Confiscation of matador vans u/s 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Imposition of penalty u/s 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Summary:

Issue 1: Confiscation of Goods u/s 111(d)
The Customs Officers seized foreign-made goods, including chemical powders and ready-made garments, from two matador vans suspected of smuggling from Bangladesh. The drivers and occupants could not produce any legal documents for the goods, leading to their confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 2: Confiscation of Indian Currency u/s 121
Indian currency amounting to Rs. 2740, believed to be the sale proceeds of smuggled goods, was recovered from one of the occupants and seized under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 3: Confiscation of Matador Vans u/s 115(2)
The matador vans used for transporting the smuggled goods were also seized under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, as they were used in the smuggling activities.

Issue 4: Imposition of Penalty u/s 112
The appellant was imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, based on the confessional statements of co-accused implicating him. The appellant contested the penalty, arguing that the evidence from co-accused was insufficient and that he was hospitalized during the alleged smuggling period, supported by a medical certificate.

Judgment:
The Tribunal found that the confessions of co-accused alone, without independent corroboration, were insufficient to prove the appellant's involvement. The Tribunal also noted procedural lapses, including the failure to provide the appellant with the inquiry report discrediting his medical certificate and the denial of cross-examination of a co-accused without sufficient reason. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- and granting the appellant consequential reliefs.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates