TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 813
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Consequently the order imposing penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/-each under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 stands confirmed. 2. In the submission of Shri Sethna, learned counsel for the Appellants, the present Appeals raise substantial questions of law. It is submitted that the order imposing the penalty is solely based on the confession of one Iqbal Yusuf Suleman, and thus, the Tribunal as also the adjudicating authority and appellate authority have all failed to take into consideration the fact that this was retracted. There could not have been any finding based on such retracted confession unless the contents thereof were supported by independent evidence. That has not been placed on record. The orders imposing penalties are vitiated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has been duly considered. From the record, it appears that the said I. Y. Suleman has made three statements. Although, it is stated that his first statement made on 6th February 2004 stands retracted, the record does not indicate that his further statements recorded by the authorities have been retracted by him. Thus, it is not just the statements made by these Appellants and alleged to be voluntarily, but independently finding that there was material to implicate the Appellants and they played active part that the penalties have been imposed. The statements of said I. Y. Suleman have been referred extensively in the impugned order of the Additional Commissioner of Customs(Appeal). He has observed as to how there is a justification to impo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcumstances that the action as against the Appellants has been upheld. 7. Reliance in this context therefore, on the judgment of Vinod Solanki v/s Union of India (supra) is misplaced. We find that in the case of Vinod Solanki(supra), the office premises were searched. There was a recovery of Indian Currency. One Vinod Solanki was thereafter detained. He made two statements on two succeeding dates before the authorities disclosing all the transactions relating to import of goods. He is stated to have confessed with regard to his role. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the said statements were retracted. The Tribunal held that the retraction alone would not make the confession inadmissible as even retracted confessional sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....law. It is argued that this was a case where the statement of the co-accused or co-noticee has been relied upon. However, as we find that the order is based not just on the statement of the co-accused but independent material which would go to show that as a part of security staff, the Appellants have not denied that they were posted at Cargo station, that they had occasion to meet Suleman but it is now urged that there was no such meeting and the same cannot be culled out from the statements on the record. We are not going to re-appreciate and reappraise the materials before the authorities, that is not permissible in our limited jurisdiction. All that we are suppose to find out is whether there is any perversity in the findings of the aut....