9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act. 2. Validity of using co-accused's statement against the appellant. Analysis: 1. The appellant filed an appeal against an adjudication order imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The case originated from the interception of a truck containing silk yarn packages. The driver and occupants were interrogated, revealing their involvement in smuggling activities. The Commissioner of Customs imposed penalties on the individuals involved, including the appellant. The appellant challenged the order, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The main contention raised by the appellant was the legality of using the statement of the co-accused, Mithilesh Chowdhury alias Raju Yadav, against him. The appellant failed to appear before the adjudicating authority despite multiple opportunities. He did not contest the accusations made by Raju Yadav in his reply to the show cause notice. The Tribunal held that since the appellant did not refute the allegations or express a desire to cross-examine Raju Yadav, his statement could be legally used as evidence. Citing a previous case, the Tribunal emphasized that statements made before Customs officials can be considered as substantive evidence. As the appellant did not challenge the accusations effectively, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the Commissioner, dismissing the appellant's appeal for lack of merit.
|
