1999 (7) TMI 474 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of ball bearings and truck.
2. Imposition of penalties on Jasbir Singh and Jaspal Singh.
3. Allegations of duress and coercion in obtaining statements.
4. Ownership and involvement of Singh Transport Co. in smuggling activities.
5. Legality of the confiscation and penalty orders.

Detailed Analysis:

Confiscation of Ball Bearings and Truck:
The Commissioner of Customs ordered the absolute confiscation of ball bearings of foreign origin valued at Rs. 41,43,000/- under Section 111(d) and confiscated the truck carrying these goods under Section 115(2). The ball bearings were seized based on specific information, indicating they were smuggled from Nepal in violation of Notification No. 9/96. The truck was intercepted, and the ball bearings were concealed in packages of biscuits. The driver and Khalasi admitted to loading the goods at the premises of Singh Transport Co. and stated that the goods were smuggled from Nepal.

Imposition of Penalties on Jasbir Singh and Jaspal Singh:
Penalties were imposed on Jasbir Singh (Rs. 2 lakhs) and Jaspal Singh (Rs. 5 lakhs). The Commissioner found that Jasbir Singh was the owner of Singh Transport Co. and was involved in the loading of smuggled ball bearings. Jasbir Singh's statements, corroborated by the driver and cleaner, indicated his knowledge and involvement in the smuggling activities. However, Jaspal Singh's penalty was based on the ownership of the truck and the alleged involvement in smuggling activities.

Allegations of Duress and Coercion in Obtaining Statements:
Jasbir Singh and Jaspal Singh claimed their statements were obtained under duress and coercion. Jasbir Singh alleged that he was falsely implicated and tortured by Customs Officers. However, the Commissioner held that the statements were admissible as evidence since they were recorded by Customs Officers, who are not considered police officers under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. The retraction of statements was not sufficient to invalidate the evidence.

Ownership and Involvement of Singh Transport Co. in Smuggling Activities:
Jasbir Singh claimed no connection with Singh Transport Co., presenting a partnership deed showing other partners. However, the Commissioner relied on statements from the driver, cleaner, and other witnesses, indicating Jasbir Singh's involvement. The evidence suggested that Singh Transport Co. belonged to Jasbir Singh, Jaspal Singh, and their father. The presence of Jasbir Singh at the premises during the raid and the recovery of ball bearings further implicated him.

Legality of the Confiscation and Penalty Orders:
The appellate tribunal upheld the confiscation of ball bearings and the truck. However, it found that the Commissioner erred by not providing an option to redeem the truck on payment of a fine. The tribunal modified the order, allowing Jaspal Singh to redeem the truck by paying a fine under Section 115(2). The penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on Jaspal Singh was set aside due to insufficient evidence of his involvement. The penalty on Jasbir Singh was upheld, considering the circumstantial evidence and the high value of the seized goods.

Conclusion:
The appeals were disposed of with modifications. The confiscation of ball bearings was confirmed, and the truck's owner was given the option to redeem it on payment of a fine. The penalty on Jasbir Singh was upheld, while the penalty on Jaspal Singh was set aside due to lack of evidence. The tribunal emphasized the admissibility of statements recorded by Customs Officers and the circumstantial evidence supporting the involvement of Jasbir Singh in smuggling activities.