1997 (10) TMI 168 - AT - Customs

Evidence - Natural justice - Personal hearing - Seizure - Show cause notice - Confiscation and penalty

Issues Involved:
1. Recovery of smuggled gold biscuits.
2. Voluntariness and retraction of statements.
3. Non-traceability of the supplier.
4. Personal hearing and procedural discrepancies.
5. Timeliness of the show cause notice.
6. Independent corroboration of the appellant's statements.
7. Quantum of penalty and redemption fine.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Recovery of smuggled gold biscuits:
The appellant was intercepted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers while entering a business premise. Upon questioning, he confessed to carrying 15 smuggled gold biscuits, which were subsequently seized. The appellant admitted to having knowledge of the smuggled nature of the gold biscuits and his involvement in similar activities previously. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Shillong, ordered the absolute confiscation of the gold biscuits under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 60,000 under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Voluntariness and retraction of statements:
The appellant contended that his inculpatory statements were made under duress and coercion, and thus, should not be considered voluntary. However, the statements were recorded in the appellant's handwriting in the presence of two independent witnesses, and there were no immediate retractions. The appellant's retraction came only in response to the show cause notice. The Tribunal found no evidence of coercion and deemed the statements voluntary, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India, which held that confessional statements made before Customs Officers are binding even if retracted later.

3. Non-traceability of the supplier:
The appellant argued that the DRI officers failed to locate Shri Seibell, the alleged supplier of the gold biscuits. The Tribunal held that the appellant should have assisted in locating Shri Seibell if he genuinely existed. The non-traceability of Shri Seibell suggested that he might not exist, leading to the reasonable conclusion that the appellant himself imported the gold biscuits illegally.

4. Personal hearing and procedural discrepancies:
The appellant disputed the record of a personal hearing allegedly held on 19-12-1996, arguing that no such hearing took place. The Tribunal found no substantial evidence to support this claim and noted that the adjudicating authority's record of the personal hearing was quoted accurately. The appellant failed to provide an affidavit or any concrete proof to challenge the record.

5. Timeliness of the show cause notice:
The appellant claimed that the proceedings were vitiated because the show cause notice was not served within six months from the date of seizure. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Harbans Lal v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, which held that the non-issuance of a show cause notice within six months does not affect the confiscability of seized goods or the imposition of penalties. Therefore, this plea lacked merit.

6. Independent corroboration of the appellant's statements:
The appellant argued that there was no independent corroboration of his statements. The Tribunal held that the recovery of the gold biscuits from the appellant's person and his detailed admissions in the statements provided sufficient corroboration. The onus to prove legal acquisition and possession of the gold biscuits lay heavily on the appellant, which he failed to discharge. The Tribunal cited precedents to support this view, including Kamaljit Singh Chadha v. Additional Collector of Customs and Modan Gopal v. Collector of Central Excise.

7. Quantum of penalty and redemption fine:
The Tribunal found the personal penalty of Rs. 60,000 imposed by the adjudicating authority to be reasonable and on the lower side, requiring no interference. Similarly, the redemption fine of Rs. 40,000 for the release of the confiscated taxi was deemed reasonable. The appeal was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld.

Conclusion:
The appeal was rejected, and the order of absolute confiscation of the gold biscuits, the imposition of a personal penalty of Rs. 60,000, and the redemption fine of Rs. 40,000 for the taxi were upheld. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's claims regarding the voluntariness of his statements, procedural discrepancies, or the need for further corroboration.

← Previous Next →