2020 (2) TMI 821 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act - smuggling - Chinese crackers - demand based on statements of the co noticees - retraction of statements - HELD THAT - Apart from the statement of Shri Harish Goyal , there is virtually no other evidence to establish that the appellant was, in any case, associated with the import of the goods in question, neither the bill of entry was filed by him - The entire case of the Revenue is based upon the retracted statements of the co noticees. It is well established law that the statements of the co-noticees, unless corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence, do not constitute the legal evidence. There are no justification for imposition of penalty upon the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Imposition of penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act

The judgment delivered by Hon'ble M S. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial), Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, pertains to the challenge against the imposition of a penalty of ?5 lakhs on the appellant under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act. The case involved the import of Chinese crackers by Shri Rahul Sehgal under the cover of a Bill of Entry in the name of M/s Kirat Sales, Moongfali Mandi, Ludhiana. Statements of individuals were recorded during the investigation, with one individual retracting his initial statement. Notably, the appellant denied involvement in the smuggling of Chinese crackers, submitting a letter to Customs to that effect. The appellant's lack of direct involvement in filing the bill of entry was highlighted. The crux of the Revenue's case relied on retracted statements of co-noticees, which, without independent evidence corroboration, do not constitute legal evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal found no justification for imposing a penalty on the appellant, setting it aside and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

---