1999 (8) TMI 501 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi.
2. Evidence and corroboration of co-noticees' statements.
3. Validity of penalties imposed on individuals and firms.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi:
The appellants argued that the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the case, as the goods were cleared at Calcutta Port. They contended that only the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta was competent to decide the matter, citing various case laws to support their argument. They emphasized that the transhipment process to Nepal is covered by specific procedures and documents, which were under the jurisdiction of Calcutta Customs.

The respondent countered that the issue was about the post-clearance deflection of goods, which occurred within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi. The Tribunal concluded that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the authorities who detected the deflection, and since the goods were seized in Delhi, the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi had the jurisdiction. The objection regarding jurisdiction was overruled.

2. Evidence and Corroboration of Co-noticees' Statements:
The appellants argued that the entire case was based on the statements of co-noticees, which should have been corroborated by independent evidence. They contended that the statements were not voluntary and had been retracted, claiming that there were marks of injury indicating duress.

The Tribunal referred to the Apex Court ruling in N.J. Sukhwani [1996 (83) E.L.T. 258 (S.C.)], which stated that evidence should be considered in its entirety, including co-noticees' statements. The Tribunal found that while independent corroboration was not present, the overall evidence was sufficient to support the findings. The Tribunal held that the statements and other evidence collectively indicated the involvement of the appellants in the illegal activities.

3. Validity of Penalties Imposed on Individuals and Firms:
- Shri Suresh Kumar Lalwani and M/s. Road Star Carriers: The Tribunal found that Shri Suresh Kumar Lalwani was a partner, not the proprietor, of M/s. Road Star Carriers. Therefore, penalties could be imposed on both the partnership firm and the individual partners. The Tribunal upheld the penalties on both Shri Suresh Kumar Lalwani and M/s. Road Star Carriers.

- Shri Jitendra Nath: The Tribunal noted that Shri Jitendra Nath had admitted to renting the godown where the smuggled goods were stored and disposing of the smuggled ball bearings. Despite his claim of retraction due to duress, the Tribunal found sufficient corroboration from other evidence and upheld the penalty imposed on him.

- M/s. Baid Organisation Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Road Star Carriers: The Tribunal found that these firms facilitated the illegal transportation and diversion of goods meant for Nepal. The involvement of their representatives in arranging transportation and changing customs stations clearly indicated their role in the illegal activities. The penalties imposed on these firms were upheld.

Reduction of Penalties:
The Tribunal decided to reduce the penalties imposed on the appellants as follows:
- From Rs. 5 lakh to Rs. 2 lakh each on Shri Manvir Singh and Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal.
- From Rs. 2 lakh to Rs. 40,000/- on Shri Jitendra Nath.
- From Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 20,000/- each on S/Shri Subh Karan Lalwani, Subh Karan Baid, Suresh Kumar Lalwani, M/s. Road Star Carriers, and M/s. Baid Organisation Pvt. Ltd.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the impugned order with the above modifications in penalties and disposed of the appeals accordingly.