1995 (4) TMI 160 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of personal penalty on the appellant.
2. Recovery and identification of gold bars.
3. Appellant's inculpatory statements and their retraction.
4. Corroboration of evidence.
5. Relevance of appellant's acquittal in criminal prosecution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition of Personal Penalty on the Appellant:
The appeal challenges the imposition of a personal penalty of Rs. 40,000/- on the appellant by the Additional Collector of Customs (P) Bombay, as per Order-in-Original No. S/14-5-59/87 Pint dated 18-12-1987.

2. Recovery and Identification of Gold Bars:
On 17-3-1987, twelve gold bars of foreign origin were recovered from the waste bin in the toilet of a British Airways flight that landed in Bombay. The recovery was based on information from the aircraft's pilot, who was informed by two crew members. These crew members identified the appellant as the person who concealed the gold bars. The appellant's statement under Section 108 was recorded, where he admitted to smuggling gold on behalf of an individual named Mohammed from Dubai.

3. Appellant's Inculpatory Statements and Their Retraction:
The appellant's statements on 17-3-1987 and 31-3-1987 were inculpatory, admitting his involvement in smuggling. However, on 3-4-1987, the appellant retracted these statements, alleging torture and compulsion. The Tribunal noted that retraction appeared to be an afterthought, as the appellant had ample opportunity to retract earlier if he was under judicial custody without any pressure from customs officials.

4. Corroboration of Evidence:
The Tribunal emphasized that retracted statements could be relied upon if corroborated on material particulars. The appellant's frequent foreign visits and identification of two individuals (co-noticees) who were supposed to retrieve the gold corroborated his statements. The Tribunal found the appellant's explanation for frequent travels and minimal declared goods unconvincing, suggesting these trips were primarily for smuggling activities.

5. Relevance of Appellant's Acquittal in Criminal Prosecution:
The appellant's acquittal in the criminal prosecution under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, was argued by the appellant's advocate. However, the Tribunal clarified that the acquittal in a criminal trial does not affect the adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act. The standards of evidence in criminal trials are more stringent, and the benefit of doubt goes to the accused. The Tribunal noted that the circumstantial evidence supporting the appellant's involvement might not have been adequately presented during the criminal trial.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no justifiable ground to differ from the conclusion drawn by the adjudicating authority. The inculpatory statements, corroborated by circumstantial evidence, were sufficient to uphold the penalty. The appeal was rejected, and the penalty of Rs. 40,000/- was confirmed as proportionate to the value of the gold involved.