TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the facts of the case are that the Appellant at the time was working as Air Customs Officer [ACO] at LBSI Airport, Varanasi. On 19.12.2019, acting upon specific information that certain groups of passengers are regularly carrying out smuggling of goods like gold, silver and other contraband items like cigarettes, saffron, etc. in their personal baggage, the Officers of DRI visited LBSI Airport, Varanasi. The DRI Officers also had specific input regarding connivance of some Custom Officers with these passengers through their kingpins. 3. That the Appellant was working as ACO at LBSI Airport, Varanasi only when the Assistant Commissioner, Shri B. K. Gupta and Superintendent Shri K. K. Singh pressured on him as during the period his main duty was in recovery cell of Customs (Preventive) Division, Varanasi. That on 19.12.2019, the Appellant also attended his duty at LBSI Airport Varanasi as per verbal order of his Superintendent Shri K. K. Singh and the Assistant Commissioner Shri B. K. Gupta and was clearing the passengers from departure side after clearing the Bangkok Flight at 9:30 Hrs by other Customs staff posted there. That at arou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elf from any malicious activities. Appellant in his statement stated that he was under constant threat by his seniors for his career leading to some mis-happenings in the past. However, nowhere in the statement any implicating statements were made by the Appellant in relation to the series of incidents that took place on 19.12.2019. Also, the Appellant specifically stated that he has not received any gratification and was not aware of any money transactions being done. 7. That both the statements of the Appellant are completely different when it comes to any incriminating evidences against the Appellant in the events leading to the day. Such contradiction is due to the immense pressure of the DRI officials while taking the first statement in a hostage like situation. In the second statement, the Appellant was under pressure again but tried to exonerate himself showing the facts that no money transaction was known to him. That the Appellant has also been falsely implicated on the basis of Role played and circumstantial evidence produced by the Customs officers as per the Show Cause Notice [SCN] dated 17.06.2020. In such SCN, the role played is based on the evidence on phone where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Appellant which has been retracted and no cross-examination was granted to the Appellant which is violation of principles of natural justice. In that circumstances Appeal order dated 05-09-2022 is to be set aside. To support their contention they relied on the following decisions:- (a) Sudarsan Jana vs. Commissioner of Customs (P), Kolkata [2017 (357) E.L.T. 656 (Tri. - Cal)]. (b) Vinod Solanki vs. UOI [2009 (233) E.L.T. 157 (S.C.)]. (c) A.L. Jalaludeen vs. Dy. Dir. of Enforcement Directorate, Chennai [2010 (261) E.L.T. 84 (Mad.)]. (d) UOI vs. Kisan Ratan Singh [2020 (372) E.L.T. 714 (Bom.)]. (e) Sachin Kumar vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore [2020 (374) E.L.T. 775 (Tri. - Bang)]. (e) Rajendra Prasad vs. Commissioner of Customs, Patna [2001 (136) E.L.T. 925 (Tri. - Cal)]. 10. The learned Departmental Authorized Representative justified the impugned order and prayed that the appeal filed by the Appellant, being devoid of any merits, may be dismissed. 11. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 12. In light of the submissions made from both the sides, I have considered the case and find that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the corroborative evidence can be used as a substantial evidence, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Naresh J. Sukhawani v. Union of India reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 258 (S.C.) wherein it was held that the statement of the co-accused, recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, inculpating himself as well as the petitioner can be used as a substantive evidence. Shri Roy has also invited my attention to the decision of the Honourable Tribunal in the case of Mohmedbhai Asrafbhai Kimsarwala v. Collector of Customs reported in 1991 (52) E.L.T. 573 (Tribunal), wherein it was held that the statement of an accomplice without corroboration would not be sufficient to prove the guilt, and when there is a knowledge of involvement, personal penalty can be imposed. It was also held that before acceptance of the statement of the accomplice, some corroboration from some independent source is called for. 5. After hearing both sides and on going through the Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal, it is observed that the appellants were penalised solely on the statement of Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma, the driver. Except the statement of Shri Shiv Kumar Shar....