1986 (5) TMI 129 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants dispensation of penalty deposit for poor agriculturist appellant pending appeal. Appeals dismissed based on evidence

The Tribunal granted dispensation of the penalty deposit imposed by the Collector of Customs on the appellant, a poor agriculturist, until the appeal's ... Evidence Issues:1. Application for dispensing with prior deposit of penalty imposed by Collector of Customs.2. Appeal against order of Deputy Collector of Customs and Central Excise regarding seizure of gold.3. Acceptability of seizure and inculpatory statement recorded under Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act.4. Reliability of evidence, including testimony of seizing officer and appellant's son's involvement in gold business.5. Assessment of penalty imposed under Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act.Analysis:1. The judgment addresses an application seeking dispensation of the penalty deposit imposed by the Collector of Customs on the appellant. The appellant, described as a poor agriculturist, argued against the deposit, stating his financial constraints. The lower appellate authority had already dispensed with the deposit based on the petitioner's lack of adequate property. The Tribunal, considering these factors and the pending appeal, decided to dispense with the prior penalty deposit until the appeal's disposal.2. The appeals in question stemmed from a common order by the Deputy Collector of Customs and Central Excise regarding the seizure of gold from the appellant during a bus search. The appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for possessing foreign gold, leading to its seizure under mahazar. The appellant's defense included challenging the seizure, the inculpatory statement recorded, and the reliability of the seizing officer's testimony. The Tribunal consolidated and dismissed the appeals based on the evidence presented.3. The Tribunal extensively analyzed the acceptability of the seizure and the inculpatory statement recorded under the Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act. The appellant disowned both the seized gold and the seizure itself. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the statement under the Customs Act could not be used against him under the Gold (Control) Act. It emphasized the admissibility of such statements, even if inculpatory, and dismissed the appellant's reliance on a Supreme Court ruling regarding confessions in a different context.4. The judgment delved into the reliability of evidence, including the seizing officer's testimony and the appellant's son's involvement in the gold business. The seizing officer's credibility was questioned due to alleged enmity with the appellant, but the Tribunal found this claim unsubstantiated. The appellant's son's profession was deemed speculative, and the evidence indicated that the contraband gold was indeed recovered from the appellant, supported by the inculpatory statement deemed true and voluntary.5. Finally, the Tribunal assessed the penalty imposed under the Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act, considering the value of the seized gold. The penalty was upheld as not harsh or excessive given the circumstances. The appeals were ultimately dismissed based on the evidence presented, including the seizure, statements recorded, and the lack of credibility in the appellant's defense arguments.