1991 (9) TMI 197 - AT - Customs

Customs Act, 1962: Confiscation upheld, penalty reduced due to lack of evidence.

SOHAN LAL Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, 1962, but reduced the penalty imposed on the appellant to Rs. 20,000 due to lack of ... Confiscation and penalty Issues:1. Confiscation of goods under Customs Act, 19622. Imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 19623. Reliance on statement of co-accused as evidence4. Lack of corroboration in evidence5. Proper investigation by the authoritiesAnalysis:Confiscation of Goods under Customs Act, 1962:The appeal challenged the order of confiscation of video cassette sets and remote controls under Sections 111(d) and 111(p) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant denied any connection with certain seized goods and argued that the evidence against him was based solely on the statement of a co-accused. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was found in possession of foreign goods that were contraband under the Customs Act. However, the Tribunal reduced the penalty imposed on the appellant from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 20,000 considering the benefit of doubt due to lack of corroboration in the evidence.Imposition of Penalty under Customs Act, 1962:The adjudicating authority had imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that the penalty was unjustified as the evidence against him was solely based on the uncorroborated statement of a co-accused. The Tribunal upheld the imposition of the penalty but reduced it to Rs. 20,000, considering the lack of corroboration in the evidence linking the appellant to the seized goods.Reliance on Statement of Co-accused as Evidence:The appellant contended that the reliance on the statement of a co-accused as the sole basis for imposing a penalty was improper. The appellant cited the Supreme Court judgment in Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar to argue that a co-accused's confession cannot be treated as substantive evidence. The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of corroboration in the evidence and reduced the penalty imposed on the appellant.Lack of Corroboration in Evidence:The Tribunal noted that the only evidence connecting the appellant to the seized goods was the uncorroborated statement of the co-accused. The investigating agency failed to collect crucial evidence, such as the Lease Deed for the premises in question, which could have corroborated the statement. Due to the lack of corroboration, the Tribunal gave the appellant the benefit of doubt and reduced the penalty imposed.Proper Investigation by the Authorities:The Tribunal highlighted the inadequacy of the investigation conducted by the authorities. They noted that crucial evidence, such as the Lease Deed for the premises in question, was not collected, which could have clarified the appellant's involvement. The Tribunal directed the Director General, Revenue Intelligence, to investigate the reasons for this lapse and sent a copy of the order for further action.This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised in the appeal and the Tribunal's decision regarding the confiscation of goods, imposition of penalty, reliance on evidence, lack of corroboration, and the need for proper investigation by the authorities.