1990 (3) TMI 224 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of Indian Currency of Rs. 56,920.00.
2. Imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000.00 on each of the appellants.
3. Confiscation of cotton yarn.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation of Indian Currency of Rs. 56,920.00
The primary issue was whether the Indian Currency of Rs. 56,920.00 seized from the possession of Shri Sanjoy M. Badiyani should be confiscated. The learned Collector based his decision on the statement of the co-accused, Shri Sunil Chandra Dev, who stated that the money was acquired from the illicit export of cotton yarn to Bangladesh. However, the appellants contended that there was no substantial evidence corroborating this statement. The Tribunal noted that while the statement of a co-accused can be relied upon, it must be corroborated by other evidence, which was lacking in this case. The Tribunal found no material evidence to support the claim that the seized amount was connected to the sale of smuggled goods. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the confiscation of the currency was not justified and ordered its return to Shri Sanjoy M. Badiyani.

2. Imposition of Penalty of Rs. 5,000.00 on Each of the Appellants
The second issue was the legality of the penalty of Rs. 5,000.00 imposed on each appellant. The appellants argued that the penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, was inappropriate and that Section 112 should have been considered. The Tribunal observed that the learned Collector had not sufficiently demonstrated that the appellants were involved in the smuggling activities. The Tribunal noted that the evidence presented was mainly based on the uncorroborated statement of the co-accused, which was insufficient to establish the appellants' involvement. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants.

3. Confiscation of Cotton Yarn
The third issue concerned the confiscation of cotton yarn under Sections 113(b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal examined whether the appellants were involved in the illegal export of cotton yarn to Bangladesh. The learned Collector had relied on the statements of various traders and the co-accused, which indicated that the appellants supplied cotton yarn with the knowledge that it would be smuggled to Bangladesh. However, the Tribunal found that the evidence did not conclusively prove that the appellants had knowledge of the illegal export activities. The Tribunal stated that suspicion, however strong, could not replace proof. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the confiscation of the cotton yarn was not justified.

Conclusion
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the penalties and ordering the return of the seized currency to Shri Sanjoy M. Badiyani. The Tribunal found that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish the appellants' involvement in the alleged smuggling activities, thereby entitling the appellants to the benefit of the doubt.