1985 (8) TMI 171 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upheld Customs Act Penalty for Possession of Foreign Watches

BHIMRAJ MISRIMAL JAIN Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM

BHIMRAJ MISRIMAL JAIN Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 499 (Tribunal) Issues:- Imposition of penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for possession of foreign origin wrist watches.- Validity of the impugned order and appeal dismissal based on evidence and arguments presented by both parties.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an appeal against the imposition of a penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant for possession of foreign origin wrist watches. The case originated from the seizure of 2105 wrist watches from an individual, with the watches being handed over to him by the agent of the appellant for delivery. The appellant denied possession of the watches and challenged the reliance placed on statements made by co-accused individuals. The appellant's counsel argued that acquisition is conditioned by physical possession, and the appellant's alleged statement was made under threat and coercion. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative contended that the appellant's connection to the watches was established through witness statements and his conduct during the seizure. The Department emphasized the applicability of the presumption under Section 123 of the Act in this case.During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel raised procedural arguments regarding the right of cross-examination and the validity of statements. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's claim that after waiving cross-examination rights, they could revive it later. The judgment highlighted the importance of constructive possession and rejected the appellant's argument that physical possession is a prerequisite for acquisition. The Tribunal emphasized that a person can be in constructive possession of goods even without physical possession. The decision focused on determining whether the appellant had acquired possession or was involved in handling the seized goods knowingly or with reason to believe they were liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962.The judgment extensively analyzed the evidence, including witness statements and the appellant's conduct during the events leading to the seizure. The Tribunal found the statement of the individual who was caught with the watches, implicating the appellant, to be voluntary and reliable. The appellant's actions, such as meeting the individual at a specified location as per a telephonic conversation, further supported the connection between the appellant and the seized goods. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence on record proved the appellant's involvement, leading to the dismissal of the appeal against the imposed penalty. The judgment affirmed the validity of the penalty based on the established facts and circumstances, considering the value of the seized watches.