9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of gold and imposition of penalties on individuals involved in a gold smuggling case. Detailed Analysis: Confiscation of Gold and Imposition of Penalties: The case involved the detection of 31 bars of foreign marked gold in the possession of an individual at the Calcutta Airport. The individual, Mahesh Verma, initially incriminated the Appellant, alleging involvement in gold smuggling. However, Mahesh Verma later retracted his statement, claiming it was made under duress. Despite the retraction, the authorities confiscated the gold and imposed penalties - Rs. 1 lakh on Mahesh Verma and Rs. 2 lakhs on the Appellant, considering him the mastermind. The Appellant appealed to the Tribunal challenging the penalties imposed. Appellant's Argument: The Appellant's counsel argued that the penalties were solely based on Mahesh Verma's unreliable statement, which contained multiple falsehoods. The counsel highlighted discrepancies in Mahesh Verma's statements, such as false information about his marital status, residence, and the circumstances of receiving the gold. Citing a Supreme Court case precedent, the counsel contended that a witness who makes intentional false statements cannot be relied upon, especially when incriminating others. The counsel emphasized the lack of corroboration for Mahesh Verma's statement and urged the Tribunal to dismiss the penalties. Respondent's Argument: The Respondent reiterated the allegations in the show cause notice and defended the reliance on Mahesh Verma's initial statement, dismissing the subsequent retraction as inadequate. The Respondent argued that Mahesh Verma had nothing to gain by falsely implicating the Appellant and maintained that the initial statement was credible. The Respondent urged the Tribunal to uphold the penalties imposed based on Mahesh Verma's statement. Tribunal's Decision: After considering both arguments, the Tribunal found that the penalties were solely based on Mahesh Verma's statement without independent corroboration. Noting the lack of material evidence or verification of Mahesh Verma's claims, the Tribunal agreed with the Appellant's counsel. Citing the Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal held that Mahesh Verma's unreliable statement was insufficient to implicate the Appellant without corroborating evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the Appellant and allowed the appeal. Additionally, the Tribunal directed the refund of a pre-deposit made by the Appellant in compliance with a previous stay order. Conclusion: The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, overturning the penalties imposed based on unreliable witness testimony without corroborating evidence. The decision highlighted the importance of independent corroboration in cases relying on witness statements, especially when significant discrepancies and falsehoods are present.
|
