2018 (9) TMI 397 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 - detection of mobile memory cards and adaptors in Baggage - Smuggling - Baggage Rules - Held that - The appellant was neither a passenger nor was he present at the time of interception of the memory cards and adaptors . He, however, operates a business in trading of similar items and had some business relationship with one of the domestic passenger - admittedly, the statement of Jitendra Sharma was entirely retracted and that a plausible explanation to exact revenge by implicating the appellant has also been suggested. Even if the statements are exculpatory and the retracted statement is discounted, the corroborative evidence in the form of the letter dated 20th August 2007 from the travel agent cannot be discounted. It is clearly mentioned therein that the appellant is a regular customer who used to book tickets on phone and used to send Mohamed Sohail to collect the tickets. There are no flaws in the finding of the original authority that a conclusion can be derived from the contents of a statement, retracted though, in conjunction with material evidence of purchase of the tickets that were utilized by others whose complicity in the smuggling has not been controverted - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant based on intercepted goods; Validity of investigation against the appellant; Admissibility of retracted statements as evidence; Reliability of corroborative evidence including a letter from a travel agent; Interpretation of section 108 of Customs Act, 1962; Applicability of precedents in similar cases; Evaluation of evidence to establish appellant's involvement in smuggling operation.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the penalty imposed under section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962, contending that he was wrongly implicated in a smuggling operation involving 'mobile memory cards and adaptors'. The investigation was initiated based on a retracted statement by a passenger, Jitendra Sharma, implicating the appellant. The appellant's counsel argued that retracted statements require corroboration and questioned the validity of a letter from a travel agent implicating the appellant, as it was not a statement under section 108 of Customs Act, 1962.

The Authorized Representative highlighted Jitendra Sharma's voluntary statement and invoices referring to the appellant, along with the letter from the travel agent indicating the appellant's involvement in facilitating the smuggling operation. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was not present during interception but had a business relationship with a passenger involved. Despite Sharma's retracted statement, the corroborative evidence from the travel agent's letter was considered significant.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the letter was not a valid statement under section 108, emphasizing that it was issued by a designated official under the Act. Precedents cited by the appellant's counsel were deemed inapplicable, as the evidence, including the invoices and the travel agent's letter, sufficiently linked the appellant to the smuggling operation. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation of evidence in similar cases to uphold the finding that the appellant's involvement was established.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant, concluding that his role in the smuggling operation was substantiated by the corroborative evidence, despite the retracted statement. The judgment was pronounced on 06/09/2018 by the Tribunal.