TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds penalty for customs violation based on appellant's active involvement and evidence</h1> <h3>KIRPAL SINGH Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, LUCKNOW</h3> KIRPAL SINGH Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, LUCKNOW - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 654 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Appeal against penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act.2. Disputed foreign origin of goods.3. Validity of confessional statement as evidence.4. Comparison with legal precedents.5. Imposition of penalty on the appellant.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The appellant challenged the order-in-original dated 8-6-1998, which penalized him with Rs. 3000. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, leading to the appellant approaching the Tribunal.2. The case involved the discovery of foreign origin goods in a jute bag hidden in a bus. The appellant, identified as the conductor, did not dispute the recovery of the bag containing ring buttons. The appellant's argument that the foreign origin of the goods was not proven was dismissed as the owner of the goods admitted to carrying foreign origin items. The appellant's knowledge and involvement were established through his confessional statements.3. The confessional statement of the appellant, recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, was considered as substantive evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that such statements hold weight as evidence, citing the Naresh J. Sukhwani case precedent. The appellant's admission of receiving payment for allowing the contraband goods in the bus further solidified the case against him.4. Legal precedents cited by the appellant's counsel, including cases like Kulbhushan Jain, Mahindra Chandra Dey, Hindustan Bearing Corporation, and B. Lakhmichand, were analyzed. The Tribunal clarified that these cases were not applicable to the current situation, as the circumstances and legal principles differed.5. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant, stating that he knowingly facilitated the transportation of foreign origin goods for monetary gain. The Commissioner's order was deemed valid, and the appeal was dismissed due to the lack of merit. The judgment emphasized the appellant's active involvement in the illegal activity, leading to the penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act.
TaxTMI 