9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 648 - CGOVT - CustomsImport of baggage without declaring the goods - 13300 nos. micro SD cards of 2 GB capacity used in mobile phone. - two bottles of Glenmorangi Signet Single Malt Scotch whisky 70 CL (700 ml) were also recovered - Government.notes that the statement of Shri Darshan Lal recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is a corroborative evidence that the respondent is associated in a case of smuggling activity with the accused as much as calls had been made by him to the pax at the time coinciding with the smuggling event. Government finds that the Commissioner (Appeals) has basically relied only on the lack of evidence without taking into consideration the statement of Shri Darshan Lal, the main accused and ignoring that statement recorded under Section 108 before a Customs Officer has evidentiary value and is binding. Moreover, the statements have not been retracted at any stage. Government thus notes that the plea of the department that there is enough evidence to establish Shri Raj Kumar Sabharwal has willingly colluded with Shri Darshan Lal in abetting and facilitating the smuggling of the impugned goods, has force. Considering the gravity of the offence and value of the smuggled goods the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in reducing the quantum of penalty upon the respondent from ₹ 2,00,000 /- to ₹ 19,000/- only.
Issues Involved:
1. Seizure of undeclared goods at IGI Airport. 2. Admissibility and evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Involvement of Shri Raj Kumar Sabharwal in smuggling activities. 4. Legality of the penalty reduction by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). 5. Condonation of delay in filing the Revision Application. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Seizure of Undeclared Goods at IGI Airport: The case originated from the interception of a passenger, Shri Darshan Lal, at IGI Airport, New Delhi, carrying undeclared goods including 13,300 micro SD cards and two bottles of Glenmorangi Signet Single Malt Scotch whisky. The goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, on the reasonable belief that they were smuggled into India and liable to confiscation. The total value of the seized goods was calculated at ?26,37,610. 2. Admissibility and Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded Under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962: The statements of Shri Darshan Lal and Shri Raj Kumar Sabharwal recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, were crucial in establishing the smuggling activities. The Government emphasized the evidentiary value of these statements, citing various judicial precedents, including the Apex Court's decision in Naresh Kumar Sukhwani vs Union of India, which held that statements under Section 108 are material pieces of evidence and can be used to substantiate contraventions of the Customs Act. 3. Involvement of Shri Raj Kumar Sabharwal in Smuggling Activities: The evidence indicated that Shri Raj Kumar Sabharwal was in constant communication with Shri Darshan Lal during the smuggling event. Despite Shri Raj Kumar's denial, the statements and call records corroborated his involvement. The Government noted that Shri Raj Kumar had given a loan to Shri Darshan Lal, which was suspiciously returned without repayment, indicating a business interest in the smuggling activities. The statements of both individuals and the circumstantial evidence pointed to Shri Raj Kumar's collusion in the smuggling activities. 4. Legality of the Penalty Reduction by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals): The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had reduced the penalty imposed on Shri Raj Kumar Sabharwal from ?2,00,000 to ?19,000. The Government found this reduction improper, emphasizing the gravity of the offense and the value of the smuggled goods. The Government restored the original penalty of ?2,00,000, asserting that the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in reducing the penalty without considering the full extent of the evidence. 5. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Revision Application: The Revision Application was filed 32 days after the initial 90-day period, within the condonable limit of 90 days. The Government condoned the delay, noting that it was due to an inadvertent mistake of law and was not intentional. Conclusion: The Government set aside the Order-in-Appeal as illegal and improper, restoring the Order-in-Original, which imposed a penalty of ?2,00,000 on Shri Raj Kumar Sabharwal under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revision Application was allowed, and the penalty reduction by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was reversed.
|
