1991 (8) TMI 206 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act for possession of foreign medicinal powder.
2. Contention of the appellant being a poor porter unaware of the contents of the truck.
3. Discrepancy in statements given by the appellant and subsequent conduct implicating him in the transportation of contraband goods.
4. Justification of penalty based on evidence and circumstances of the case.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CALCUTTA pertains to an appeal against a penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act for possession of foreign medicinal powder. The case involved the seizure of the contraband from a truck, with the appellant and the driver found in possession of the goods. The appellant, initially claiming ignorance of the contents, later admitted to knowing about the medicinal powder and agreeing to transport it for a monetary consideration. The appellant's subsequent statements retracting his initial admission were considered as afterthoughts by the tribunal.

The appellant's defense centered on portraying himself as a poor porter who was unaware of the nature of the goods he was loading. However, the tribunal found discrepancies in the appellant's statements and conduct, indicating his involvement in the transportation of the contraband. The appellant's possession of a significant amount of money, contradicting his low income as a porter, further supported the tribunal's decision to uphold the penalty.

The tribunal emphasized the importance of considering all evidence, including the appellant's statements, conduct, and the circumstances of the case, in determining his culpability. The appellant's attempt to shift blame onto another individual was refuted based on the lack of corroborating evidence. Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed was justified under the Customs Act, considering the value of the seized goods and the appellant's involvement in their transportation.

In light of the above analysis, the tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty imposed on the appellant for his role in the transportation of smuggled medicinal powder.