9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Levy of penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 on the appellant. 2. Evidence connecting the appellant with the gold biscuits under seizure. 3. Benefit of doubt in penal proceedings. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras, involved an appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad, imposing a penalty on the appellant under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The case originated from the interception of a bus at Saheerabad Check Post, where gold biscuits were found behind the driver's seat. The carrier of the gold biscuits, Arif, admitted to being sent by the appellant to fetch gold, leading to the penalty imposed on the appellant. The appellant's counsel argued that apart from Arif's retracted statement, there was no evidence linking the appellant to the offense. It was highlighted that during cross-examination, Arif denied knowing the appellant, casting doubt on the connection between them. The counsel contended that the retracted statement alone was insufficient to establish the appellant's involvement, emphasizing the lack of corroborative evidence. Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal noted that the gold biscuits were confiscated, and Arif was penalized separately. The crucial issue was whether there was substantial evidence directly or circumstantially connecting the appellant to the seized gold. The Tribunal emphasized the principle that penalty cannot be solely based on a retracted statement in penal proceedings. Despite suspicions, the lack of concrete evidence necessitated giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had provided an exculpatory statement denying any acquaintance with Arif or involvement in the incident. Additionally, there was a lack of investigative material establishing the connection between Arif and the appellant or the source of the gold. Ultimately, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to uphold the penalty on the appellant, leading to the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellant. In conclusion, the judgment focused on the requirement of substantial evidence in penal proceedings to establish liability. The lack of corroborative material and the retracted nature of the statement led the Tribunal to grant the appellant the benefit of doubt, emphasizing the importance of concrete proof over mere suspicion in legal proceedings.
|
