1999 (6) TMI 320 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Penalty imposition under Sections 112 (a) and (b) of the Customs Act based on smuggling allegations.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the penalty imposed under Sections 112 (a) and (b) of the Customs Act. The case involved allegations of smuggling of gold, where an individual coming from Dubai was intercepted, and gold biscuits were found concealed in the aircraft toilet. Subsequent investigations led to the apprehension of another individual working for Air India. The Customs Act was invoked, and penalties were imposed after statements were recorded. The appellant contested the evidence against them, arguing that the statements recorded by the C.B.I. after the case registration should not be admissible as evidence under Sec. 108 of the Customs Act.

The key contention revolved around the admissibility of statements made before the C.B.I. after case registration as evidence under Sec. 108 of the Customs Act. The appellant argued that such statements should not be considered against them. The appellant highlighted precedents where the Supreme Court clarified that statements made before Customs officers under Sec. 108 of the Customs Act could be used as substantive evidence, despite not being recorded under Sec. 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the appellant emphasized that no statement under Sec. 108 was recorded for them by the Customs authorities. The only evidence against the appellant was a disclosure statement made by another individual after the case registration, which the appellant contended was insufficient for penal action.

The Tribunal considered the lack of incriminating statements against the appellant recorded under Sec. 108 of the Customs Act. While statements by other individuals were recorded, nothing directly implicated the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the evidence relied upon, specifically the disclosure statement made by the individual after the case registration, was deemed inadequate for penal action against the appellant. Citing the absence of recorded statements under Sec. 108 for the appellant and the insufficiency of evidence, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order regarding the appellant and allowed the appeal.