1991 (8) TMI 212 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of penalties under Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act
- Confiscation of gold and imposition of personal penalty
- Allegations of smuggling and possession of contraband gold
- Non-consideration of reply statement and lack of speaking order

Imposition of Penalties:
The appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Customs, imposing penalties of Rs. 25,000 under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and another Rs. 25,000 under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The case involved the recovery of 16 gold biscuits of foreign origin from the appellant and another person, leading to allegations of smuggling and possession of contraband gold. The appellant denied the allegations and claimed that the confessional statements were obtained under duress.

Confiscation of Gold and Personal Penalty:
The adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of the seized gold under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, and imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the appellant for being directly involved in smuggling. The order did not address the appellant's contentions regarding the coercion in obtaining the confessional statement. The appellant had retracted the statement before both the Collector and the Magistrate, alleging coercion and injuries during the process. However, the order failed to discuss these crucial points and did not assess the voluntariness of the confession.

Non-Consideration of Reply Statement:
The appellate tribunal found that the impugned order was not a speaking order as it did not address the appellant's reply statement adequately. The order did not discuss the appellant's claims of coercion and injuries during the confession process. The tribunal noted that when a party alleges that a confessional statement was obtained under duress, there should be a discussion to determine the veracity of the claim. As the order did not address these crucial aspects, the tribunal set aside the order and directed the adjudicating authority to provide a personal hearing to the appellant and pass a speaking order considering all relevant factors and principles of natural justice.

In conclusion, the appeals were allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a detailed consideration of the appellant's contentions, a speaking order addressing all relevant points, and adherence to the principles of natural justice during the adjudication process.