9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Implication of the Appellant in the smuggling case based on statements of co-accused. 2. Admissibility of statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act. 3. Consideration of evidence and legal precedents in determining penalty. Analysis: 1. The case involved the apprehension of a truck loaded with smuggled textiles and the subsequent statements of the driver, cleaner, and owner of the truck implicating the Appellant in the smuggling operation. The Appellant was alleged to have used the truck for transporting the smuggled goods, as per the statements provided by the co-accused. The Appellant denied involvement and argued that mere statements without corroborating evidence should not lead to penalties. However, the Tribunal noted that the owner's statement clearly linked the Appellant to the offense, as he allowed the truck's use for smuggling purposes for a fee. The Tribunal found no reason to doubt the credibility of the statements implicating the Appellant, leading to the imposition of a penalty. 2. The admissibility of statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act was a crucial aspect of the case. The Tribunal considered the owner's statement, made on the day of the incident, as substantial evidence against the Appellant. Referring to a relevant Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal emphasized the significance of statements obtained under Section 108 in establishing guilt. Despite the Appellant's argument regarding the discharge in a related prosecution case, the Tribunal upheld the admissibility and reliability of the owner's statement in determining the Appellant's penalty. 3. In assessing the penalty imposed on the Appellant, the Tribunal took into account the absolute confiscation of the smuggled goods. While upholding the penalty on the Appellant due to the evidence and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal decided to reduce the penalty amount from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 10,000. This reduction was based on the existing confiscation of the goods and the overall context of the case. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the balance between the penalty imposed and the mitigating factors, ultimately leading to the rejection of the appeal while modifying the penalty amount for the Appellant.
|
