2003 (1) TMI 563 - AT - Customs

Tribunal overturns order, citing evidence discrepancies, lack of investigation, and coercion in smuggling case.

PARVEEN KR. SARAOGI Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, LUCKNOW

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned order. It found discrepancies in the evidence regarding the seizure of goods, ... Smuggling - Proof - Place of seizure - Statement - Admission of smuggling - Penalty Issues:1. Validity of the impugned order regarding the confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalties.2. Proof of seizure of goods and determination of smuggled character.3. Admissibility of evidence and statements made by the appellants.4. Reliance on confessional statements and coercion.5. Legal basis for confiscation, penalties, and imposition on the appellants.Analysis:1. The appellants challenged the validity of the impugned order on two grounds. Firstly, they contested the seizure of goods at a specific location, arguing it was not proven. Secondly, they disputed the smuggled character of the goods, claiming they were freely tradable and not prohibited under the Customs Act.2. The Tribunal examined the evidence regarding the seizure of goods and found discrepancies in the testimonies of witnesses. Notably, witnesses crucial to corroborating the seizure did not support the Department's version. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's version that the goods were seized from their house, not at the alleged location, based on witness statements and lack of supporting evidence.3. The Tribunal scrutinized the evidence presented by the appellants, including purchase documents and affidavits from neighbors. It noted that the documents were submitted promptly after the seizure, contrary to the Department's claim. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department failed to investigate the purchase of goods from the importer, disregarding crucial evidence and witness statements.4. Regarding confessional statements, the Tribunal dismissed their evidential value, citing coercion and torture during their procurement. The observations of the Special CJM on injuries sustained by one of the appellants supported the claim of coercion, leading to the rejection of the alleged confessions.5. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the Department failed to prove the goods were smuggled, as they were freely tradable and of foreign origin. It highlighted the lack of evidence supporting the Department's case and the appellants' submission of relevant purchase documents. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling against the confiscation of goods, penalties on the appellants, and the legal basis for the actions taken by the authorities.