2002 (8) TMI 441 - AT - Customs

Tribunal adjusts penalties for appellants, reduces for two, clears others due to lack of evidence

The Tribunal modified penalties for two appellants, reducing them to Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively. Penalties for other appellants were set ... Smuggling - Burden of Proof - Service of documents - Evidence - Penalty Issues Involved:1. Imposition of penalties under Clause (b) of Section 112 of the Customs Act.2. Validity of evidence and statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act.3. Retraction of statements and its legal implications.4. Quantum of penalties imposed.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Imposition of penalties under Clause (b) of Section 112 of the Customs Act:The appellants challenged the penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs under Clause (b) of Section 112 of the Customs Act. The penalties were based on the recovery of foreign-origin silk yarns from a truck intercepted by Customs officers and subsequent investigations, including statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act.2. Validity of evidence and statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act:The case against the appellants was built on the recovery of goods and statements recorded under Section 108. The driver and his companion admitted the goods were being transported to one of the appellants, and documents recovered from the appellant's residence showed accounts related to the business of dealing in foreign-origin silk yarn. The statements of the appellants and other individuals were crucial in establishing the connection with the smuggled goods.3. Retraction of statements and its legal implications:Several appellants retracted their statements, claiming they were made under coercion. The Tribunal examined the validity of these retractions. It was noted that retractions should be addressed to the authority that recorded the statement, not to any extraneous authority. In this case, the retractions were not considered valid as they were not addressed to the DRI, the authority that recorded the original statements.4. Quantum of penalties imposed:The Tribunal reviewed the penalties imposed on each appellant and made the following observations:(i) Appeal No. C/466/2000 (Sh. Krishan Mohan Tiwari): The appellant admitted to transporting smuggled goods and did not retract his statement. The Tribunal found the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- justified but reduced it to Rs. 12,000/- considering the circumstances.(ii) Appeal No. C/460/2000 (Sh. Deepak Mishra): The appellant was identified as the consignee, and documents recovered from his residence linked him to the smuggled goods. Despite his denial, the Tribunal found the evidence credible and upheld the penalty but reduced it from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-.(iii) Appeal No. C/461/2000 (Sh. K.P. Mishra): No connection was established between the appellant and the goods. The Tribunal set aside the penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.(iv) Appeal Nos. C/462, 463, and 502/2000 (Sh. Mukesh Mishra, Sh. Rajendra Kumar Mishra, and Sh. Anjani Kumar Shah): The Tribunal found no evidence linking these appellants to the smuggled goods. The penalties imposed were set aside.Conclusion:The Tribunal modified the penalties for Sh. Krishan Mohan Tiwari and Sh. Deepak Mishra, reducing them to Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively. The penalties imposed on Sh. K.P. Mishra, Sh. Mukesh Mishra, Sh. Rajendra Kumar Mishra, and Sh. Anjani Kumar Shah were set aside due to lack of evidence linking them to the smuggled goods. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.