1990 (12) TMI 232 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty u/s 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Voluntariness and admissibility of inculpatory statements.
3. Evidence of abetment by the appellant.
4. Negligence and statutory responsibilities of Custom House Clearing Agents.

Summary:

1. Imposition of penalty u/s 114 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant, a Custom House Clearing Agent, was penalized Rs. 5,000/- by the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for misdeclaration of goods intended for export. The goods declared as grey knitted polyester fabrics were found to be jute gunny rags upon re-examination by the S.I.B. Officers.

2. Voluntariness and admissibility of inculpatory statements:
The appellant's initial statement on 23-6-1987 was exculpatory. Subsequent inculpatory statements recorded on 25-6-1987 and 8-7-1987 were claimed to be made under duress and were retracted on 9-7-1987. The Tribunal found these statements to be involuntary, influenced by the appellant's detention, and thus inadmissible as evidence.

3. Evidence of abetment by the appellant:
The Tribunal noted that the partner of the export firm, Shri Subramaniam, did not implicate the appellant in any of his statements. The appellant had informed the authorities about Subramaniam's whereabouts and handed over all relevant documents. The Tribunal concluded that there was no direct or circumstantial evidence to prove the appellant's knowledge or involvement in the misdeclaration.

4. Negligence and statutory responsibilities of Custom House Clearing Agents:
The Tribunal acknowledged that while the appellant may have been negligent, negligence alone does not warrant penal consequences u/s 114 of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's family had been in the business for three generations without any prior adverse notice and that the appellant's license had been suspended for over 3½ years, which was deemed sufficient punishment.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the penalty, exonerated the appellant of the charge, and allowed the appeal, granting the benefit of doubt due to the penal nature of the proceedings and the lack of corroborative evidence.