1994 (12) TMI 227 - AT - Customs

Customs Act penalty upheld for Port Trust employee, overturned for cooper due to lack of evidence

V. KRISHNA RAJ Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS

V. KRISHNA RAJ Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS - 1995 (80) E.L.T. 628 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Penalty imposed under section 112(a) of the Customs Act on two appellants for abetting in unauthorized import and attempted smuggling.2. Allegations against the first appellant, a Port Trust employee, for assisting in the unauthorized removal of smuggled goods.3. Allegations against the second appellant, a cooper, for his role in opening packages without knowledge of unlawful activities.Analysis:1. The judgment concerns two appellants penalized under section 112(a) of the Customs Act for their involvement in unauthorized import and attempted smuggling. The first appellant, a Port Trust employee, was accused of aiding in the clandestine removal of smuggled goods. The appellant's counsel argued that the appellant, as a godown keeper, was unaware of the smuggled goods and only cooperated due to threats to his family. The appellant admitted to his involvement but claimed coercion. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, citing the appellant's admission and corroborating statements. The penalty of Rs. 2,500 was deemed appropriate for the appellant's actions.2. The first appellant's defense of coercion was dismissed by the Tribunal, emphasizing that cooperation with smugglers, even under threat, is unacceptable. The appellant's failure to report threats to authorities indicated complicity. The Tribunal upheld the lower authority's findings, holding the first appellant liable for abetting smuggling and tampering with goods. The penalty was deemed justified given the appellant's actions and admission.3. The second appellant, a cooper, was accused of opening packages without knowledge of unlawful activities. The Tribunal noted that the only evidence against the second appellant was a statement by the first appellant, which did not implicate the second appellant directly. The Tribunal found no other evidence linking the second appellant to the smuggling. Considering the second appellant's role and lack of direct involvement, the Tribunal overturned the penalty imposed on the second appellant, granting the benefit of doubt.In conclusion, the judgment upheld the penalty on the first appellant for abetting smuggling, emphasizing the seriousness of such actions. The second appellant was acquitted due to lack of substantial evidence linking him to the unlawful activities, highlighting the importance of clear evidence in penalizing individuals for customs violations.