1999 (12) TMI 602 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Confiscation of currency under Customs Act, 1962
Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962
Reliability of statements of co-accused
Expert opinion on handwriting evidence
Validity of statements obtained under threat

Confiscation of Currency under Customs Act, 1962:
The appeal challenged the order for the absolute confiscation of Indian and Nepalese currency, alleging it to be the sale proceeds of smuggled foreign marked gold from Nepal. The appellant's counsel argued against the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, emphasizing discrepancies in the identities of the alleged persons arrested and lack of evidence linking them to the appellant. The appellant contended that the case was solely based on the statements of co-accused, which should not be relied upon without corroborative evidence, citing relevant legal precedents.

Imposition of Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant disputed the penalty imposed on the grounds of the recovery of currency from alleged individuals who were not further penalized as they were deemed untraceable during adjudication. The appellant's counsel highlighted discrepancies in the identities of the arrested persons and emphasized the lack of detailed investigation to establish their connection to the appellant. The appellant argued that the penalty was unjustified and that the case relied heavily on the statements of co-accused without sufficient corroborative evidence.

Reliability of Statements of Co-accused:
The appellant raised concerns regarding the reliance on the statements of co-accused without corroborative evidence, citing various legal decisions to support the argument that such statements should not be the sole basis for adjudication. The appellant's counsel contended that the case lacked substantial evidence beyond the statements of the alleged co-accused, questioning the validity of the proceedings based solely on these statements.

Expert Opinion on Handwriting Evidence:
The appellant contested the expert opinion on handwriting evidence, presenting a counter opinion from another handwriting expert that contradicted the initial findings. The appellant's counsel argued that the interim report of the handwriting expert was not provided to the party, raising doubts about the reliability of the evidence presented in the impugned order. The Commissioner's reliance on the handwriting evidence was challenged, emphasizing discrepancies in the handling of expert opinions in the case.

Validity of Statements Obtained Under Threat:
The appellant disputed the validity of a statement dated 9-1-1998, alleging it was obtained under threat and subsequently rebutted by the party. The appellant's counsel contended that the Commissioner did not consider a statement dated 18-9-1997, which was not favorable to the department and was not provided to the party. The appellant raised concerns about the handling of statements and their impact on the adjudication process, highlighting inconsistencies in the treatment of evidence by the Commissioner.

In the judgment, the Tribunal acknowledged the infirmities in the impugned order, including discrepancies in the identities of the arrested individuals, lack of detailed investigation, and failure to provide crucial evidence to the party. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner for re-consideration, emphasizing the need for a fresh decision in accordance with the law and providing the appellant with an opportunity to substantiate their defense during the re-adjudication proceedings. The appeal was disposed of with these directions for further review and decision-making.