1999 (2) TMI 300 - AT - Customs

Tribunal overturns penalty on firm for foreign gold biscuit; lack of evidence absolves appellants

SUDHENDRA NATH ADHYA Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (PREV.), CALCUTTA

SUDHENDRA NATH ADHYA Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (PREV.), CALCUTTA - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 286 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Imposition of personal penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 based on the recovery of a gold biscuit of foreign origin.2. Reliance on the statement of a co-accused in imposing penalties.3. Interpretation of legal precedents regarding liability for penalties under Customs Act.Analysis:1. The appellant firm was penalized under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the recovery of a gold biscuit from an individual, who indicated it was meant for the appellants' shop. The appellant's representative argued that mere association with the smuggled goods does not establish liability for the penalty, citing a precedent (Mukhtar Ahmed Balarangadi case). The Tribunal noted the absence of concrete evidence linking the gold biscuit to the appellants, as the individual in possession initially denied any connection, and another individual named as the source also denied involvement. The Tribunal found no justification for imposing the penalty based on the available evidence and set it aside, allowing the appeal.2. The Revenue, represented by Shri R.K. Dey, contended that the statement of the individual in possession of the gold biscuit, implicating the appellants' shop, should be considered reliable as he voluntarily led the officers to the shop and mentioned a previous transaction with the same shop. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment (Naresh J. Sukhwani case), the Revenue argued that a co-accused's statement can serve as substantive evidence. However, the Tribunal found the circumstances of the present case distinguishable from the Supreme Court case, as there was no corroborating evidence supporting the statement and both the individual in possession and the alleged source denied involvement. Consequently, the Tribunal did not find the penalty justified based on the co-accused's statement alone.3. In analyzing the legal precedents and arguments presented, the Tribunal emphasized that the mere expectation of taking delivery of smuggled goods does not automatically render one liable for penalties under the Customs Act. The Tribunal differentiated the present case from previous judgments by highlighting the lack of concrete evidence linking the appellants to the gold biscuit and the denial of involvement by both individuals named in connection with the transaction. By examining the specific facts and circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that there was insufficient basis for imposing the penalty on the appellants, ultimately setting it aside and granting relief in favor of the appellants.