9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal against imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. - Confiscation of contraband goods under Sections 111(d) and (p) of the Act. - Involvement of appellants in smuggling activities. - Challenge to penal liabilities of the appellants. - Validity of statements and evidence presented in the case. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai, involved three appeals challenging the Order-in-Original related to penalty imposition under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The impugned order also included the confiscation of contraband art silk fabrics and metallic yarn under Sections 111(d) and (p) of the Act. The appeals focused on penal liabilities, not the order of confiscation, and the involvement of the appellants in smuggling activities was under scrutiny. The facts of the case revealed the recovery of contraband goods linked to the appellants through statements and investigations conducted by customs authorities. Regarding the appellant Jagadish Patel, goods were found on his premises, and his explanation of permitting storage of building hardware material was deemed unconvincing. The tribunal concluded that Patel was aware of the smuggled items stored on his property, leading to his penal liability under Section 112(b) of the Act. However, the penalty amount imposed on Patel was reduced from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 5,000 considering his role in the incident. Appellant Pravinsinh Jadeja was implicated due to articles found on the terrace of a building where his office was located. The tribunal noted uncertainties regarding Jadeja's ownership of the building and directed storage in the terrace, leading to doubts about his involvement. Consequently, the penalty imposed on Jadeja was set aside due to insufficient evidence linking him to the smuggling activities. As for appellant Ladharam Jagwani, his initial admission of abetting in storage and disposal of smuggled goods was followed by a retraction, citing alleged torture during interrogation. The tribunal found no evidence supporting the claim of coercion, upholding Jagwani's penal liability under Section 112(b) of the Act. However, considering his minor role, lack of prior offenses, and reduced penalty amount of Rs. 5,000, the tribunal modified the impugned order. In conclusion, the tribunal allowed one appeal, set aside the penalty on Jadeja, and partially allowed the other two appeals, modifying the penalty amounts imposed on Patel and Jagwani. The judgment highlighted the importance of evidence, statements, and the level of involvement of each appellant in determining their penal liabilities under the Customs Act.
|
