1990 (11) TMI 288 - AT - Customs

Tribunal grants appeal, emphasizes corroboration requirement for co-accused statements.

SADHAN CHANDRA MALLICK Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE)

SADHAN CHANDRA MALLICK Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) - 1993 (66) E.L.T. 112 (Tribunal) Issues:Appeal against imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 based on contraband goods found in a Crane Vessel's cavity. Contention regarding lack of seizure list copy, vagueness of show cause notice, reliance on co-accused statements, absence of specific sub-section mention, and need for independent corroboration.Analysis:The appellant challenged the penalty imposed for involvement in removing contraband goods from a Crane Vessel's cavity. The appellant's advocate argued that the seizure list copy was not provided, the show cause notice was vague, and the reliance on co-accused statements lacked corroboration. The advocate cited multiple decisions to support the argument that the penalty imposition was not lawful (Para 3).The respondent contended that the co-accused statements were sufficient to implicate the appellant. They highlighted a joint statement by two co-accused individuals detailing the appellant's involvement in concealing contraband goods. The respondent emphasized the value of co-accused statements and cited legal precedents to support their position (Para 4).The Tribunal considered both arguments and evaluated the evidence against the appellant. The key issue was whether the penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 was justified. The Tribunal noted that the case relied heavily on co-accused statements without independent corroboration. The statements of two independent witnesses contradicted the co-accused statements, casting doubt on the case against the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized the need for independent corroboration before relying solely on co-accused statements. As the statements lacked sufficient corroboration, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, granting the benefit of doubt and allowing the appeal (Para 7).In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of independent corroboration in cases relying on co-accused statements. The lack of corroboration from independent sources led to the benefit of doubt being granted to the appellant, resulting in the appeal being allowed and the appellant receiving consequential relief.