TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1653
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ttes, cosmetics and electronic fireworks of foreign origin in the godown. Shri Amarjit Sahu could not produce any licit documents in support of legal possession/ transportation/ importation of the recovered goods. Shri Amarjit Sahu stated that he is not the owner of the goods and one Shri Ajay Sarawagi is the owner of the goods. Shri Amarjit Sahu called Shri Ajay Sarawagi on phone and informed him about the seizure of the contraband goods. 1.1. The bags recovered from the godown were taken to the Customs Divisional Office and detailed examination was conducted in the presence of two independent witnesses. On examination, the said bags were found to contain 10 cartons of GUDANG GARAM brand cigarettes of Indonesian origin, 50 cartons of BLACK brand cigarettes of Indonesian origin, 28 cartons of WIN brand cigarette of foreign origin, 5 cartons of electric fireworks with Chinese script and 20 packets of Strait Glatt Neutralizing Balm N 400 and Strait Glatt Hair Straightener 400 bearing Chinese script. 1.2. In his statement dated 02.03.2019 recorded under Section 107 of the Customs Act, 1962, Shri Amarjit Sahu stated that he is not the owner of the recovered goods and that one per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase where contraband cigarettes and some other foreign origin goods were seized from a godown. Even though he resisted, the officers overpowered him and taken him into custody. In his written statement taken under such circumstances, he admitted that he was owner of the contraband goods. However, he has retracted his statement vide his letter dated 06.03.2020 addressed to the Adjudicating Authority, wherein he has categorically denied to have made any voluntary statements at the time of seizure. It is his submission that he had merely signed some documents that were placed before him and were directed to sign by the officers and such signatures did not reflect any voluntary admission on his part. The Appellant submits that he was wrongfully detained and forced to sign multiple documents, including blank sheets, without being informed of their contents. 2.1. The Appellant submits that the statements under Section 107 of the Customs Act were recorded from him on 03.03.2019 and from the co-accused, Shri Amarjit Sahu, on 02.03.2019, at a time when both were in custody and formally arrested on 03.03.2019. No further statements were recorded thereafter that could qualify as voluntary.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wagi and Shri Amarjit Sahu. As they have failed to discharge this liability and could not produce any documents to prove that the seized goods were legally imported, the adjudicating authority has rightly confiscated the impugned goods and imposed penalty inter alia on the Appellant. Accordingly, he justified the penalty imposed on the Appellant. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents and submissions made by both the sides. 5. In the present appeal we find that the Appellant has prayed only for setting aside the penalty imposed on him. The Appellant is not contesting the confiscation of the impugned goods. Thus, we only examine the role of the Appellant herein in the alleged offence and the evidence available on him to implicate him in the alleged offence. Consequently, we will examine whether the penalty imposed on the Appellant in the impugned order is sustainable or not. 5.1. At the outset, we would like to examine the claim made by the Revenue that cigarettes are notified under Section 123 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 vide Notification No. 103/2016-Customs (NT) dated 25.07.2016 and hence the onus to prove that the impugned goods under seizure are not smug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant was the owner of the goods. Thus, we observe that the ownership of the goods has not been claimed by the Appellant. On the contrary, the ownership has been thrust on him. Thus, we hold that the provisions of section 123 of the Customs Act are not applicable in this case, as the Appellant has not claimed the ownership of the impugned goods. 6. In order to examine the role of the appellant in the alleged offence, it is required to examine the sequence of events that led to the seizure of the impugned goods. The sequence of events as narrated in the show cause notice are as under: - on the basis of specific information that some contraband goods are secreted inside, the officers of customs visited the rented premises (godown) owned by Shri LaiphrakpamBira and enquired about Shri. Amarjit Sahu only; - Shri Amarjit Sahu was the only person available in the godown; -The owner of the premises was not present at that time; -During the course of search, the officers found some HDPE bags containing cigarettes, cosmetics and electronic fireworks of foreign origin in the godown; - Shri Amarjit Sahu stated that he is not the owner of the good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered from the godown. Such an exculpatory statement of coaccused, in absence of any independent corroboration, cannot form the sole basis for imposition of penalty upon the appellant. 6.3. In support of the above view, we rely upon the following decisions : (i) Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail v. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate - 2007 (220) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = [2007] 79 SCL 611 (SC). That a confession of a co-accused person cannot be treated as substantive evidence and can be pressed into service only when the Court is inclined to accept other evidence and feels the necessity of seeking for an assurance in support of the conclusion deducible therefrom. A confession purported to have been made before an authority would require a closure scrutiny. It is therefore, now well settled that the Court must seek corroboration of the purported confession from independent sources. (ii) Prakash Kumar v. State of Gujarat - (2007) 4 SCC 266. The confession of co-accused by itself is not sufficient to hold the other accused guilty. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that the confession of a co-accused is a fragile and feeble type of evidence and it coul....