1998 (1) TMI 256 - AT - Customs

Penalties Revoked Due to Insufficient Evidence and Procedural Lapses

MOOSA Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & C. EX., JAIPUR

MOOSA Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & C. EX., JAIPUR - 1999 (109) E.L.T. 446 (Tribunal) Issues Involved:1. Imposition of personal penalties.2. Confiscation of goods.3. Validity of show cause notice.4. Right to cross-examine.5. Merits of the case regarding lawful possession and import of goods.6. Allegations of coercion and torture.Detailed Analysis:1. Imposition of Personal Penalties:The Commissioner imposed personal penalties on five individuals with varying amounts. The penalties ranged from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2,00,000. The Tribunal examined whether the penalties were justified based on the evidence and the legal provisions under Section 112 of the Customs Act.2. Confiscation of Goods:The Commissioner ordered absolute confiscation of 10 foreign marked silver slabs, 42 foreign marked gold biscuits, jute cloth packing material, and a Maruti Gypsy used for transporting these items. The Tribunal reviewed whether the confiscation was justified, considering the evidence presented and the legality of the goods' possession.3. Validity of Show Cause Notice:The appellants argued that the show cause notice was issued beyond the mandatory six-month period under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal found that the show cause notice was issued on 27-8-1993, while the seizure occurred on 12-3-1993. The adjudicating officer's method of serving the notice (`chaspa' method) was not in accordance with the prescribed procedure under the Customs Act. Therefore, the Tribunal accepted the appellants' contention that the notice was not properly served within the stipulated time.4. Right to Cross-Examine:The appellants contended that they were not allowed to cross-examine the Police and Customs Officers involved in the seizure, which violated the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order did not address this issue, and the appellants failed to show any record of their request for cross-examination. Thus, the Tribunal could not accept the plea of non-observance of natural justice.5. Merits of the Case Regarding Lawful Possession and Import of Goods:The appellants claimed that the seized gold and silver were lawfully imported and covered by baggage receipts. The Tribunal examined the evidence, including baggage receipts and statements from the appellants. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the weight of the silver slabs mentioned in the baggage receipts and the seized silver. However, the Tribunal accepted that the baggage receipts produced by the appellants covered the entire quantity of silver seized. Regarding the gold biscuits, the Tribunal found that the appellants had provided a photocopy of a baggage receipt dated 27-12-1993, which was not adequately considered by the adjudicating officer. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence did not sufficiently establish the smuggled nature of the goods.6. Allegations of Coercion and Torture:The appellants alleged that they were coerced into making involuntary statements and were tortured while in custody. The Tribunal reviewed medical certificates and found no substantial evidence of torture or coercion. The medical reports did not show visible marks of injury, except for minor abrasions and swelling.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants due to insufficient evidence establishing the smuggled nature of the goods. The Tribunal also found procedural lapses in serving the show cause notice. Consequently, all five appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.