1996 (4) TMI 310 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:

1. Imposition of penalties under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Involvement of Seva Singh in the transportation and smuggling of gold.
3. Involvement of Gurdev Singh in the transportation and smuggling of gold.
4. Validity of the show cause notice under the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Reliability of statements and retractions by involved parties.
6. Adequacy of evidence and corroboration.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition of penalties under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and the Customs Act, 1962:

The appeals challenge the imposition of penalties of Rs. 15,00,000/- each on the appellants under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and the Customs Act, 1962. The penalties were imposed following the interception of Truck No. PAT 1812, which resulted in the recovery of 360 gold biscuits of foreign origin and Pakistani-marked cloth concealed among rice bags.

2. Involvement of Seva Singh in the transportation and smuggling of gold:

The primary evidence against Seva Singh was the statement of Darshan Singh, the truck driver, who alleged that Seva Singh supervised the loading of gold. However, Darshan Singh later retracted his statement, and there were discrepancies in the description of Seva Singh's age. Seva Singh also provided documentary evidence showing his presence in Chandigarh on the day of the alleged loading. Given the lack of corroborative evidence and the retractions, the tribunal found the evidence insufficient to conclusively prove Seva Singh's involvement. Consequently, the penalties imposed on Seva Singh under both the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and the Customs Act, 1962 were set aside.

3. Involvement of Gurdev Singh in the transportation and smuggling of gold:

Gurdev Singh admitted his involvement in the smuggling operation in his statement recorded on 2-4-1986, which was not made under duress. Although he later retracted this statement, the tribunal deemed the retraction an afterthought. The tribunal upheld the penal liability of Gurdev Singh, but considering the repeal of the Gold (Control) Act, reduced the penalty under this act from Rs. 15,00,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The penalty under the Customs Act was also reduced from Rs. 15,00,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- due to the lack of clarity regarding his exact role in the smuggling operation.

4. Validity of the show cause notice under the Customs Act, 1962:

The appellant's counsel initially contended that the show cause notice dated 22-8-1986 was only under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, making the penalty under the Customs Act invalid. However, it was clarified that a separate notice under the Customs Act was also issued on the same date. Therefore, this contention was not pressed further.

5. Reliability of statements and retractions by involved parties:

The tribunal considered the reliability of statements and subsequent retractions. Darshan Singh's retracted statement was not deemed sufficient to implicate Seva Singh, especially given the corroborative evidence supporting Seva Singh's alibi. In contrast, Gurdev Singh's initial inculpatory statement was considered reliable, and his retraction was viewed as an afterthought.

6. Adequacy of evidence and corroboration:

The tribunal scrutinized the evidence and corroboration presented. For Seva Singh, the evidence was found inadequate due to discrepancies and lack of corroboration. For Gurdev Singh, the initial confession and corroborative statements from other involved parties were deemed sufficient to establish his involvement.

Conclusion:

The tribunal allowed the appeals for Seva Singh, setting aside the penalties imposed on him. For Gurdev Singh, the tribunal partly allowed the appeals, reducing the penalties under the Gold (Control) Act to Rs. 1,00,000/- and under the Customs Act to Rs. 5,00,000/-. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →