2014 (9) TMI 678 - HC - Customs

Smuggling of cars of foreign origin - misuse of facility provided under Transfer of Residence Rules - corroborative statement - Held that - True it is that the Court must seek corroboration of purported confession from independent sources, however, the principle that when there is independent corroboration, the statement can be relied upon is thus absolute and can be accepted. Precisely this is the course adopted by the Adjudicating Authority and the Tribunal in rejecting the version of the present appellant. The attempt is to have re-appreciation and reappraisal of the material before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had once remanded the case and on remand the Adjudication Authority imposed the penalty which exercise has been upheld by the impugned order. - the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal challenging Tribunal's order
2. Substantial questions of law raised
3. Exoneration of one party and penalty on another
4. Reliance on co-noticee's statement without independent evidence
5. Misuse of Transfer of Residence Rules for smuggling cars
6. Syndicate's operations in importing and selling vehicles
7. Tribunal's findings and remand for fresh consideration
8. Rejection of arguments regarding exoneration and penalty imposition
9. Applicability of principles regarding confession of co-accused as substantive evidence

Analysis:

1. The appellant filed an appeal challenging the Tribunal's order passed in response to appeals directed against the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai's decision. The appellant raised substantial questions of law, arguing that the proceedings should have been dropped against them since others were exonerated despite being termed as masterminds. The Tribunal was criticized for relying on a co-noticee's statement without independent evidence.

2. The Tribunal found that there was smuggling of cars by misusing Transfer of Residence Rules, with vehicles imported in the names of passengers who were not the actual owners but used as fronts. A syndicate, including the appellant and others, formed a company to facilitate this scheme. Orders for vehicle imports were placed, payments arranged through illegal channels, and penalties imposed on the appellant and another party.

3. The Tribunal remanded the case for fresh consideration and found no merit in the appellant's contentions. The roles of the parties were analyzed, with the Tribunal concluding that the appellant and his associates were actively involved in the importation and clearance of vehicles. The argument of exoneration of another party was dismissed based on the roles and evidence presented.

4. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's arguments regarding exoneration and penalty imposition, emphasizing the established involvement of the appellant and his associates in the scheme. The Tribunal found independent corroboration supporting the charges, including statements from passengers and documents related to the imports.

5. The judgment discussed the applicability of principles regarding the confession of co-accused as substantive evidence. It highlighted that when there is independent corroboration, the statement can be relied upon. The Adjudicating Authority and the Tribunal rejected the appellant's version based on this principle, upholding the penalty imposition.

6. The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that there were no substantial questions of law raised. The Tribunal's decision to uphold the penalty imposition was supported, and the appeal was accordingly rejected without costs.