2016 (5) TMI 501 - AT - Customs

Appellate tribunal overturns department's claim due to lack of evidence, stresses importance of corroborative evidence

The appellate tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellants, citing the lack of conclusive evidence supporting the department's claim of illegal ... Whether clothes seized by the department were meant for export to Nepal illegally - the evidences that seized goods were meant for export, are the statements of the driver of vehicle and the helper. These statements, as brought out in the SCN, convey that goods were to be taken to Nepal through bullock carts and that goods of similar nature were brought regularly and transported to Bargania by them at an average of 12-15 times a month. Held that:- in SCN it is stated that articles of clothes were meant for Nepal. The evidences of both the driver and the helper are hearsay evidences without any corroboration and authenticity. It is not on record as to from where the driver & helper got the conviction that seized goods were to be sent to Nepal and whether on earlier occasions they had taken similar consignments of clothes to Nepal. On the contrary, the documents produced by the owner of seized clothes regarding licit acquisition of seized goods were not at all investigated by the department. So, in the absence of any other corroboration, the statements of co-accused driver and helper cannot be made the clinching evidences to decide the case against the appellants. There is also no evidence on record whether the seized goods were actually moving towards the border. Rather as per the statements of the driver and the helper also the goods were being taken to Bairgania where claimant M/s. Shyam Trading Company is doing trading in clothes. In the light of relied upon case laws it cannot be held that there was any attempt to export seized clothes. Therefore, the department has failed to establish that the goods seized from truck were meant for illegal export to Nepal. - Decided in favour of appellants with consequential relief Issues:1. Whether the seized goods were meant for illegal export to Nepal.2. Reliability of statements from driver and helper as evidence.3. Admissibility of purchase documents provided by the appellant.4. Lack of corroborative evidence against the appellants.5. Interpretation of legal principles regarding confession of a co-accused.6. Consideration of producing documents subsequently as evidence.Analysis:Issue 1: Seized Goods for Illegal ExportThe main issue in the judgment was whether the clothes seized by the department were intended for illegal export to Nepal. The first appellate authority upheld the decision based on the recovery of a bill from the vehicle and statements from the driver and helper suggesting the goods were meant for export. However, the appellate tribunal found the statements to be hearsay evidence without corroboration. The tribunal also noted the lack of evidence indicating the goods were moving towards the border, as they were headed to a location where the owner was trading in clothes. Thus, the tribunal concluded that the department failed to establish the goods were meant for illegal export.Issue 2: Reliability of StatementsThe reliability of the statements from the driver and helper was crucial in determining the intent behind the seized goods. The tribunal highlighted that these statements were hearsay and lacked authenticity or corroboration. The tribunal emphasized that the statements alone could not be considered as conclusive evidence, especially without further supporting evidence or investigation into the source of information regarding the intended export.Issue 3: Admissibility of Purchase DocumentsThe appellant provided purchase documents to support their case, which were deemed acceptable based on legal precedents. However, the department did not investigate these documents, and the tribunal noted that the documents were not considered by the lower authorities. This lack of investigation into the legitimacy of the purchase documents raised doubts about the department's case against the appellants.Issue 4: Lack of Corroborative EvidenceThe tribunal highlighted the absence of corroborative evidence against the appellants, aside from the statements of the driver and helper. Without additional evidence supporting the allegations of illegal export, the tribunal found the case against the appellants to be lacking in substance.Issue 5: Legal Principles on ConfessionThe tribunal referenced legal principles regarding the confession of a co-accused, emphasizing that such confessions cannot be treated as substantive evidence without other supporting evidence. The tribunal cited relevant case law to underscore the importance of corroboration when relying on a co-accused's statement in legal proceedings.Issue 6: Producing Documents SubsequentlyThe tribunal discussed the admissibility of documents produced subsequently by the appellant, highlighting a previous case where the production of additional documents led to a different legal outcome. The tribunal emphasized the importance of considering all relevant documents and evidence in reaching a decision, especially when determining the intent behind seized goods.In conclusion, the appellate tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellants, highlighting the lack of conclusive evidence supporting the department's claim of illegal export and the absence of corroboration for the statements provided by the driver and helper. The judgment underscored the importance of thorough investigation and corroborative evidence in establishing allegations in legal proceedings.