1999 (12) TMI 188 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Reduction of penalty by the Collector (Appeals)
- Allegations of aiding and abetting smuggling
- Arguments regarding lack of evidence and contradictions in statements
- Applicability of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act

Reduction of Penalty by the Collector (Appeals):
The judgment pertains to two appeals against the Order-in-Appeal where the penalty imposed on the appellants was reduced by the Collector (Appeals). The penalty was reduced from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 15,000 for one appellant and from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 40,000 for the other. This reduction in penalty led to the filing of the present appeals challenging the decision.

Allegations of Aiding and Abetting Smuggling:
The case involved allegations of aiding and abetting smuggling. It was alleged that one of the appellants assisted a person in smuggling gold bars. The appellants were charged for violation under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The adjudicating authority imposed penalties on the appellants based on statements and evidence provided by the department. The appellants appealed to the Collector (Appeals) against these penalties.

Arguments Regarding Lack of Evidence and Contradictions in Statements:
The legal counsel for the appellants argued that the case against the appellants was primarily based on statements, which were either exculpatory or provided by co-accused individuals. They contended that no violation of the law could be established solely based on such statements. The counsel highlighted various contradictions in the statements provided by the individuals involved, pointing out inconsistencies regarding dates, persons, and events. Additionally, it was argued that the evidence presented did not conclusively prove the guilt of the appellants.

Applicability of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act:
The judgment delved into the applicability of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act to the case. The legal argument centered around the fact that the gold in question was seized by Customs authorities before it was handed over to the appellants. It was contended that since the appellants did not acquire possession of the gold or engage in any activities mentioned in Section 112(b) before the seizure, they could not be held liable under this section. The tribunal agreed with this argument, stating that the appellants could not be charged for attempting or preparing to commit the act of smuggling under the Customs Act.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders and reducing the penalties imposed on the appellants. The judgment emphasized that without specific provisions in the law for punishing attempts or preparations for violations, the appellants could not be held liable under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act.