1998 (3) TMI 365 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order for confiscation of seized gold and imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the interception of the Appellant by DRI Officers, resulting in the seizure of gold believed to be smuggled into India. The Appellant was issued a show cause notice under Sections 111(d) and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, leading to the impugned order for confiscation of gold and imposition of a penalty. The appeal challenged the legality of the impugned order.

2. The Appellant's counsel argued that the panchanama was not prepared at the interception spot, raising doubts about its validity. The Appellant retracted his statement, citing legal precedents to support his case. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that the Appellant failed to provide legal proof for the possession of foreign gold, justifying the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. The main issue for consideration was whether the Appellant presented sufficient grounds to set aside or modify the impugned order. The tribunal found in favor of the Appellant, indicating discrepancies in the case.

4. The tribunal examined various documents, including the impugned order, panchanama, show cause notice, and relevant legal provisions. Reference was made to legal precedents and statutes such as the Customs Act, 1962, FERA, and Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947, to assess the case.

5. Detailed examination of the interception incident revealed that the panchanama was not prepared at the spot due to public presence, raising questions about the validity of the procedure. Cross-examination of witnesses highlighted inconsistencies in the evidence presented by the customs officers, casting doubt on the reliability of the Appellant's statement.

6. The tribunal concluded that the seized goods were contraband, justifying confiscation. However, the imposition of a personal penalty on the Appellant lacked substantial evidence. The tribunal criticized the reliance on the retracted statement and lack of independent corroboration. The order set aside the penalty, emphasizing the weakness of the evidence and the presumption-based reasoning in the impugned order.