TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 794
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st December, 2018, a light commercial vehicle, Swaraj Mazda bearing registration No. UP-21-BN-5207, was intercepted by the said unit while the cartons containing foreign origin cigarettes were being unloaded. Since in the godowns, so also in the vehicle, the said cigarette cartons were traced, a Punchnama dated 21st December, 2018 was drawn recording entire details and recovery of 150 cigarettes cartons from the aforesaid light commercial vehicle and 33 cartons from the godown in question. C. The present appellant was present at the spot of the incident and was, accordingly, detained and his statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act during said period. D. It was evaluated that the total 25,01,200 cigarette sticks of foreign origin were seized from the aforesaid consignment. E. The same has led to the show cause notice dated 07th June, 2019 being served on the appellant, which includes the entire details of consignment seized with the relevant Punchnama and other documents, the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act including that of appellant and the other incriminating material found on the spot. The sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) on Sh. Nizakat, S/o Sh. Mullan under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, for his various acts of omission and/or commission as discussed in the foregoing para's. (iv) I impose penalty to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) on Sh. Suman Pal, S/o Sh. Ram Prasad under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, for his various acts of omission and/or commission as discussed in the foregoing para's (v) I impose penalty to Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) on Sh. Nizakat, S/o Sh. Mullan under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, for his various acts of omission and/or commission as discussed in the foregoing para's." H. The appellant feeling aggrieved preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order under Section 128 to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) after considering the contentions raised by the appellant vide judgment and order dated 10th March, 2023 was pleased to dismiss the appeal and upheld the order in original dated 20th November, 2019. I. Being dissatisfied by the aforesaid order, the appellant approached before the Customs, Excise and Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m, the penalty imposed ought not to have been more than prescribed value of the good. He would claim that the provisions of Section 14 are not adhered to as the value of the good as defined under sub-section 41 of Section 2 of the Customs Act defines value to mean the value determined in accordance with the said provisions. 7. That being so, his contentions are that not only there is a denial of opportunity by not permitting cross examination of the witness, but also the orders are contrary to the very mandate provided under Rule 12 of the Rules referred above. 8. As against above, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned orders and would urge that the appellant has failed to discharge the burden. 9. According to him, the statement of the appellant and the witnesses which was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act is binding. He would, as such, urge that appellant has failed to discharge the burden in the light of the admissions given in the statement recorded under Section 108 and that being so, the present appeal does not involve any question of law and is liable to be dismissed. 10. We have considered the aforesaid submission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irm the order in original dated 20th November, 2019 by dismissing the appeal. The CESTAT, before whom, the appellant had preferred an appeal, had considered the sanctity of the Punchnama dated 21st December, 2018, the legality of the act of seizure of the smuggled goods, the impact of statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the effect of the alleged denial of cross examination and the right of the appellant to seek cross examination, the goods being banned for import or export, the effect of Section 123 viz. the burden on the present appellant and dismissed the appeal. 16. At the outset, we are required to consider as to the effect of statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act. 17. The statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act of the appellant so also the other witnesses, at no point of time, was retracted and the same has a binding effect in law. Once such statements are not retracted and by virtue of statutory fiction, are rightly so accepted by the authorities for the seizure and confiscation. Therefore, in our opinion, no fault can be noticed in the same. 18. Such seizure was effected after having satisfied that the goods were brought....