2024 (11) TMI 303 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Overturns Penalties Due to Lack of Evidence, Emphasizes Need for Direct Proof in Smuggling Cases.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and waiving the penalties imposed on the appellant. It emphasized the lack of ... Seizure of gold and vehicle by police authorities - Police authorities have intercepted the vehicle in which appellant and others were travelling and handed over the seized goods to the customs authorities - HELD THAT:- The appellant Mr. P. Narasimhulu is the brother-in-law of Mr. Y.M. Naseer Hussain, who was coming from Riyad. Appellant being brother-in-law has gone to receive Mr. Y.M. Naseer Hussain from the Chennai Airport. No any confessional statement of appellant that he is aware from gold. It is natural that being a close relative i.e., brother-in-law, the appellant has gone to receive Mr. Y.M. Naseer Hussain. The police authorities have intercepted the vehicle in which appellant and others were travelling and handed over the seized goods to the customs authorities. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Union of India Vs Kasambhai Umerbhai Kureshi [1979 (2) TMI 216 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that “goods handed over to the customs authority by the police after seizing from the accused are not “goods seized” within the meaning of Section 123 of the Customs Act.” Therefore, Section 123 of the Customs Act is not applicable against the appellant in the present case. In this case, it is important to note that there is no any confessional statement against the appellant by co-accused Mr. Y.M. Naseer Hussain. Co-accused Mr. Y.M. Naseer Hussain stated that appellant Mr. P. Narasimhulu came to pickup and was not aware that he was carrying the FMG in his luggage. AR also argued that vehicle is going through the longer route to the destination and alleged that since the appellant is a police constable and is able to escape from other authorities, they intentionally took the longer route so as to avoid the police authorities. Although no any evidence or statement regarding in this point. In my opinion, no one can be convicted or punished only on basis of assumptions. The appellant may have chosen the other route due to being in congestion or so many reason. Appellant Mr. P. Narasimhulu stated in his statement that he is working as constable in Proddutur PS. As his brother-in-law was coming to India, he engaged a car and went to receive his brother-in-law at Chennai Airport. He does not know anything about the items brought by his brother-in-law in his baggage and he went to Chennai Airport only to pickup him by hiring car. Therefore, no any confessional statement of appellant. No substantive evidence against the appellant is found. Hence the appeal is liable to be allowed. Issues:- Seizure of gold and vehicle by Customs authorities- Confiscation of gold and imposition of penalties- Appeal against the decision of the Adjudicating Authority- Interpretation of confessional statements and liability of co-accused- Application of legal precedents regarding knowledge or conscious possession- Allegations of intentional evasion by taking a longer routeAnalysis:The case involved the seizure of gold and a vehicle by Customs authorities based on information received by police officials. The appellant, Mr. P. Narasimhulu, was traveling with his brother-in-law, Mr. Y.M. Naseer Hussain, who was found in possession of gold biscuits. The authorities detained both individuals along with others, and after adjudication, the Original Adjudicating Authority ordered the confiscation of the gold and imposed penalties on Mr. Naseer Hussain and Mr. Narasimhulu. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appellant filing an appeal before the Tribunal.During the proceedings, the appellant's relationship with Mr. Naseer Hussain was highlighted, emphasizing that being a close relative, the appellant had gone to receive him at the airport. The Tribunal referenced a judgment stating that goods handed over to Customs by the police after seizing from the accused are not considered 'goods seized' under the Customs Act, which was crucial in this case.The Tribunal also discussed the significance of confessional statements and liability of co-accused. Citing legal precedents, it was noted that a confession by one accused against a co-accused cannot be the sole basis for proceeding against the other. In this case, there was no confessional statement by Mr. Naseer Hussain against the appellant, indicating a lack of direct evidence linking the appellant to the gold.Furthermore, the Tribunal examined the concept of knowledge or conscious possession in similar cases, emphasizing that a presumption cannot be drawn without proof of awareness. The appellant's profession as a police constable and the choice of a longer route were scrutinized, with the Tribunal concluding that mere assumptions or allegations without concrete evidence cannot lead to conviction.Ultimately, the Tribunal found no substantive evidence against the appellant, leading to the allowance of the appeal. The impugned order was set aside, and the penalties imposed on the appellant were waived off, highlighting the importance of concrete evidence and legal principles in such cases.