2013 (9) TMI 218 - AT - Customs

Smuggled goods - Huge quantity of smuggled silver bricks of foreign origin were confiscated along with vehicles, vessel and country crafts used for smuggling/transport of such smuggled goods Whether the assesse was involved in the smuggling activities relating to above confiscated silver Held that - The assesse s confessions stand corroborated not only by co-accused but also by other persons and other evidences as found from the hotel registers - the letter addressed to Collector Central Excise does not in any way reduce the evidentiary value of his confessional statement which stands corroborated by other evidence in the form of statements Decided against assesse. Penalty Held that - The involvement of the assesse in the landing of silver and arranging for transport were proved and penalty on him was warranted but as the penalty upon the co- noticees were penalty was reduced thus reduced for the present assesse also.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of the Commissioner
- Confiscation of silver bricks and vehicles
- Involvement of individuals in smuggling activities
- Validity of confessional statements
- Retraction letters and their impact on penalty imposition

Analysis:
- The appeal challenged the penalty imposed on an individual regarding the confiscation of silver bricks and vehicles used for smuggling activities. The case involved intercepted vehicles carrying silver bricks, totaling 9332.418 Kgs, with foreign markings. The investigation revealed the involvement of several individuals in the smuggling operation, including the appellant.
- The appellant's involvement was primarily established through his detailed confession, corroborated by statements from co-accused and other witnesses. The confession included details of planning the smuggling operation, meeting with the gang leader in Bombay, and arranging for transportation and landing of the contraband.
- The appellant's retraction letter addressed to the Collector was deemed invalid as it did not retract the essential facts mentioned in his initial confession. The letter was considered a representation rather than a valid retraction due to not being addressed to the appropriate authority.
- The Tribunal found the appellant's involvement in the smuggling activities proven by a preponderance of probability, justifying the penalty imposition. However, considering leniency granted to another co-noticee in a previous case, the penalty for the appellant was reduced from Rs. 20,00,000 to Rs. 5,00,000.
- The judgment clarified that the findings regarding other co-noticees mentioned in the case were specific to the present appellant's appeal and should not be construed as judgments on their individual cases.