Customs penalty under Section 114AA needs corroborated proof of false declaration; retracted statements alone are insufficient.

Penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act requires reliable corroboration of a knowing false declaration or use of false documents; retracted statements and call records alone were held insufficient where no direct evidence linked the person to preparation, signing, or use of the alleged false export documents, so the penalty against Shri Anil Gadodia was set aside. In contrast, where shipping bills declared marble slabs but the containers actually held red sanders, the misdeclaration attracted penalties under Sections 114 and 114AA against Shri Rameshwar Sharma and Shri Suresh Sharma, although the amounts were reduced as excessive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable against Shri Anil Gadodia on the basis of retracted statements and call records. (ii) Whether penalties under Sections 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 were sustainable against Shri Rameshwar Sharma and Shri Suresh Sharma for their role in the attempted export of red sanders in misdeclared containers.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable against Shri Anil Gadodia on the basis of retracted statements and call records.

Analysis: The material against Shri Anil Gadodia consisted mainly of his own retracted statements and the statements of co-noticees. The Tribunal found no direct evidence that he prepared, signed, used, or caused to be made any false declaration or document in relation to the export transaction. It held that the investigating officer could not treat the retraction as an afterthought and that reliance on uncorroborated retracted statements and call data was insufficient, especially when no transporter, CHA, or other material connected him with the stuffing, movement, or export of the containers.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 114AA was not sustainable against Shri Anil Gadodia.

Issue (ii): Whether penalties under Sections 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 were sustainable against Shri Rameshwar Sharma and Shri Suresh Sharma for their role in the attempted export of red sanders in misdeclared containers.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the exporter had filed shipping bills declaring marble slabs while the containers actually contained red sanders, a prohibited export item, and that the goods were stuffed in buffer containers without sealing. It accepted that the exporter failed to discharge the burden of explaining how the prohibited goods entered the export containers, and that the misdeclaration in the shipping bills attracted the penal provisions. At the same time, it considered the quantum excessive and reduced the penalties imposed on the exporter and the employee.

Conclusion: Penalties were sustained against Shri Rameshwar Sharma and Shri Suresh Sharma, but the amounts were reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeal of Shri Anil Gadodia succeeded, while the connected appeals of Shri Rameshwar Sharma and Shri Suresh Sharma succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction in penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot rest on retracted statements alone and requires reliable corroboration showing a knowing or intentional false declaration or use of false documents in the export transaction.

---