2021 (1) TMI 1050 - HC - Customs

Tribunal upholds sandalwood smuggling penalty based on initial confession and corroborative evidence. Appeal dismissed.

K. Rahuman Sait Versus The Commissioner of Customs, The Registrar, The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.

K. Rahuman Sait Versus The Commissioner of Customs, The Registrar, The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. - 2021 (376) E.L.T. ... Issues Involved:1. Whether the Tribunal was right in imposing a penalty on the appellant based solely on a retracted statement without independent corroborative evidence.2. Whether the Tribunal erred in not considering the appellant's acquittal by the criminal courts.3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the penalty on the appellant when the co-accused were discharged from all charges.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Imposition of Penalty Based on Retracted Statement:The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision to impose a penalty based on a retracted statement. The Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 25 Lakhs to Rs. 15 Lakhs. The appellant's initial statement on 11.03.1998 admitted involvement in smuggling sandalwood, which was later retracted through letters dated 01.06.1998 and 01.07.1998. The Adjudicating Authority found the retraction belated and upheld the initial statement, corroborated by other evidence, including statements from Kalkan and Selvaraj. The Tribunal affirmed this, noting the appellant's presence during the search and the discovery of sandalwood concealed with roofing tiles. The Tribunal held that the retraction did not invalidate the initial confession, which was supported by other evidence.2. Consideration of Acquittal by Criminal Courts:The appellant argued that the Tribunal should have considered his acquittal by the criminal courts. The Tribunal noted that the acquittal was reversed by the Madurai Bench of the High Court, which convicted the appellant and others. The Tribunal emphasized that the Adjudicating Authority could independently proceed with penalty imposition without awaiting the outcome of criminal proceedings. The Tribunal re-evaluated the facts and upheld the penalty, finding substantial evidence against the appellant, including his presence during the search and the corroborative statements from other witnesses.3. Sustaining Penalty Despite Co-Accused Being Discharged:The appellant contended that the penalty was unjust as the co-accused were discharged. The Tribunal's decision to impose a penalty on the appellant was based on his significant role in the smuggling operation, as evidenced by his presence during the search and his initial confession. The Tribunal noted that the order in the case of Janar, who filed the shipping bill, was reversed by the High Court, reinstating the penalty. The Tribunal found that the appellant's actions and involvement were distinct and warranted the penalty, despite the discharge of co-accused.Conclusion:The Tribunal's decision was upheld, affirming the penalty based on the appellant's initial confession corroborated by other evidence, despite the retraction and acquittal in criminal proceedings. The appeal was dismissed, with no substantial question of law arising for consideration.