1994 (9) TMI 205 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of penalty by the Additional Collector of Customs
- Seizure of foreign gold and involvement of the appellant
- Corroboration of evidence from co-accused
- Reliance on Insurance Certificate as evidence

Imposition of Penalty:
The judgment involves two appeals against the penalty imposed by the Additional Collector of Customs on the appellants, amounting to Rs. 1,00,000 each. The case arises from a seizure of foreign gold in a vehicle intercepted near Pilibhit, leading to the imposition of the penalty.

Seizure of Foreign Gold and Appellant's Involvement:
The seizure of foreign gold in the intercepted vehicle, along with the involvement of the appellant, Shri Trilochan Singh, is central to the case. The gold was found wrapped in packets with specific markings, and the appellant was alleged to be the intended recipient of the gold. Statements from the co-accused, discrepancies in their accounts, and the appellant's denial of involvement formed the basis of the case against him.

Corroboration of Evidence from Co-Accused:
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for corroboration of evidence from co-accused in material particulars before finding the accused guilty. It cites legal precedents stating that the evidence of co-accused should be corroborated by independent sources, and mere statements from co-accused are considered weak evidence. The judgment analyzes the statements of the co-accused in this case and highlights the lack of sufficient corroboration to establish the guilt of the appellant.

Reliance on Insurance Certificate as Evidence:
The judgment scrutinizes the reliance placed on an Insurance Certificate found in the seized vehicle, which bore the name of the appellant. It notes that the Insurance Certificate was not mentioned in the show cause notice, depriving the appellant of the opportunity to contest its validity. The judgment concludes that the Insurance Certificate alone does not serve as independent corroboration of the evidence against the appellant, and without proper notice, it should not have been relied upon. Ultimately, the lack of substantial corroboration leads to the setting aside of the penalty imposed on the appellant.