Appellate tribunal overturns penalty on police constable for lack of evidence in Customs Act case.

MAHADEO BABURAO DAREKAR Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (P), MUMBAI

MAHADEO BABURAO DAREKAR Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (P), MUMBAI - 2001 (135) E.L.T. 365 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:
1. Violation of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act and imposition of penalty.
2. Connection between the appellant's actions and smuggling of goods.
3. Role of the appellant in granting extra shore passes and abetment of smuggling.

Issue 1: Violation of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act and imposition of penalty:
The appellant, a police constable, was charged with violating Section 112(b) of the Customs Act for granting extra immigration shore passes beyond the legitimate number. The Collector of Customs imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 after finding the appellant guilty. The appellant's explanation of issuing an extra pass due to human error was deemed untenable. The Collector highlighted the appellant's negligence in issuing passes without proper details, leading to suspicions of smuggling activities. The lapses in the appellant's duties were considered as abetment of smuggling, resulting in the penalty under Section 112(b).

Issue 2: Connection between the appellant's actions and smuggling of goods:
The appellant argued that the charge sheet did not establish a nexus between his actions and the smuggling of goods. The charge only mentioned the issuance of extra shore passes without connecting it to the actual smuggling. The appellant's role was limited to granting additional passes, and it was unclear how this act was linked to the smuggling of detonators. The adjudicating authority also expressed doubts about whether any crew members had smuggled goods out of the vessel, further weakening the connection between the appellant and the smuggling activities.

Issue 3: Role of the appellant in granting extra shore passes and abetment of smuggling:
The appellant's advocate contended that the appellant's behavior, as a senior police officer, was peculiar, but the order passed by the Collector was challenged due to the lack of evidence establishing the appellant's involvement in smuggling. The appellate tribunal observed that the charge against the appellant did not sufficiently demonstrate his connection to the act of smuggling as required by Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The tribunal emphasized the importance of proving abetment through a clear disclosure of the connection between the appellant and the smuggler, which was absent in this case. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellant due to the lack of evidence linking him to the smuggling activities.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the tribunal's decision based on the legal provisions and evidence presented during the proceedings.