TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 906
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring registration number WB 19 D2303. Upon examination, the vehicle was found to contain shoes and cigarettes of foreign origin camouflaged with nearly 420 kgs of ginger. The driver of the vehicle Mukesh Rahman was taken into custody and his statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act. In his statement the driver of the vehicle stated that he was actually contracted by a person named Mohammed Fayaz to carry ginger from the airport to Pusta Kolkata, that on three occasions in the past, he had indulged in this type of contract to carry the goods from the airport and unloaded them at different places for which he received Rs.1000 per trip . The notice further states that around 20:00 hours on the day of seizure one Shri Praveen Kum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... without any other corroboratory evidence to support the charge, cannot be fastened upon with the consequences of, as his being owner of the seized/ confiscated goods. Further, imposition of penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, without specifying any subsection thereof was illegal and could not be levied. The appellants relied upon the decision in the case of Narain Das Commissioner of Customs, Patna, (2004, (178) 8/ELT/554/T), Birendra Kumar Singh v. Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow, 2006, (190) 8/ELT/46T In support of the contention that mere inculpatory statement of the co accused cannot be this basis for imposition of penalty, in the absence of any other independent corroborative evidence. In support of their contention that no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... While the appellant states that he had gone at the behest of his friend, he is at a complete loss to inform of and divulge any further details and particulars of the so called friend. In case Sri Praveen Kumar Gupta wanted to so help, it was incumbent upon him to have informed the details of his friend to the authorities for purpose of enquiry and investigations. With no information being provided by the accused appellant, undoubtedly, the needle of suspicion would point at him, having been so identified by the driver. 6. The appellants have further stated that they were not offered cross-examination of the accused driver to bring out the truth and on this plea alone, he can be given relief of the penalty imposed on him. 7. The fact of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oms Act is concerned with, I am of the view that while the sub-clause ordinarily ought to have been spelled, however it is not an omission of such proportions as could result in non-imposition of any penalty as long as the nature of offence is discernible from the charges levied. On the plea of imposition of penalty on the basis of sole evidence of the statement of co-accused the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Praveen Kumar Saraogi V. Union of India (2014 (299) ELT 151 ALL) had categorically held that the statement of co-Customs accused recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act can be used against the co-accused of the same case This order of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Co....