2000 (1) TMI 508 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 based on recovery of smuggled goods and related evidence.
- Validity of evidence including recovery of visiting card and statements made by appellant's brother.
- Assessment of penalties and reduction of penalty amount.

Analysis:
1. Imposition of Penalty under Section 112(b):
The appeal was filed against the imposition of a penalty of Rs. one lakh under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved the seizure of 300 kg of silk yarn of third country origin from a truck, along with the recovery of the appellant's visiting card. The appellant was alleged to be dealing with smuggled silk yarn based on circumstantial evidence, including statements made by his brother and recovery of business records showing sale and purchase of such goods. The adjudicating authority found the appellant liable for the penalty under Section 112(b) based on the evidence presented.

2. Validity of Evidence - Recovery of Visiting Card and Statements:
The appellant contested the penalty, claiming no connection with the seized yarn and arguing that the evidence against him was insufficient. The appellant highlighted that the recovery of his visiting card alone should not implicate him and pointed out that other visiting cards were also found but no action was taken against those individuals. Additionally, the appellant alleged that his brother's statement, implicating him in the sale and purchase of smuggled silk yarn, was made under duress and should not be considered voluntary. However, the Department of Revenue argued that the recovery of the visiting card, coupled with the brother's statement, indicated the appellant's involvement in dealing with smuggled goods.

3. Assessment of Penalties and Reduction of Penalty Amount:
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order but deemed the original penalty amount of Rs. one lakh as harsh given the appellant's role. Consequently, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,000. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order imposing the penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, based on the evidence presented during the proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi upheld the imposition of a penalty on the appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, based on the recovery of smuggled goods and related evidence, despite the appellant's arguments challenging the validity of the evidence presented. The Tribunal, while affirming the penalty, reduced the amount from Rs. one lakh to Rs. 10,000 considering the circumstances of the case and the appellant's role in the alleged offense.