TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1624
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s forum by his successor in interest namely Ranjita Rajendra Bane, as his widow. Since it is an issue concerning personal penalty on a Government official, who is not a passenger to be covered under Baggage Rules, the appeal is taken up for hearing by this Tribunal. 2. Succinctly stated, the issue that gives raise to this appeal has emerged out of a seizure of smuggled gold made by the DRI Customs, upon specific intelligence report, from the dustbin of the gent's toilet of the Pune International Airport and some passengers travelled by Spice Jet Flight No. SG 52 from Dubai on 16.08.2018 in the wee hour. Allegation against the Appellant's husband (now deceased) is that as a Customs Hawaldar, though on sanctioned leave and was at his nativ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oted in the Commissioner (Appeals) order from para 15 to para 16.1, with his justification for non-acceptance of the said plea taken by the deceased Appellant before him, with a thread bore analysis. It is imperative to reproduce the relevant para 15 to 16.1 for better clarity. "15. The appellant have contended that the statements of co-accused cannot be relied upon without evidence and also contradictory statements cannot be relied upon. Here I find that the statements of co-accused have been corroborated with the SDRs and CDRs and recovery of gold from the Gents Lavatory of Immigration Hall at Pune International Airport on 16-08-2018. Therefore, it cannot be said that the statements of co-accused cannot be relied upon in the pres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zed the same at 5 am of 16-08-2018, he called back, that, Shri D. G. Nandanwar Superintendent AIU has clearly stated that he was shown call data for period 5 am to 6 am of 16-08-2018, thus the Investigation Agency for the best reasons known to them has not produced call data prior to 5 am of 1608-2018 and the same appears with an intent to hide records of call timing of the appellant to Shri D.G. Nandanwar, Superintendent which would have proved that the information was intended to be given much prior to seizure and that, thus the entire proceedings were been on misleading evidences. The respondent has submitted the reply in the matter as detailed at para 4(vi) above. Here I am of the opinion that the appellant cannot be treated as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....department to pass on the information. However no such evidence has been brought on record that the appellant tried to approach other officers of the department when the Superintendent AIU did not respond to his call. Such an act on the part of departmental officer cannot be imagined. The act of the appellant further confirms the observation of the respondent that the said phone call was nothing but an afterthought to camouflage of his role in aiding and abetting the illegal activities of smuggling." 5. Now going by the said finding, what is noticeable and required to be noted here is that there is finding on the basis of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naresh J. Sukhwani that self inculpatory statement recorded under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erintendent have called back the present Appellant (now deceased) who informed him that gold brought in the Spice Jet on that day was dump in the gent's laboratory of Immigration Hall and being Superintendent of Customs he may seized the same. Further, investigation reveals that several calls were made between 03:04:03 A.M. and 05:33 A.M. even from deceased Appellant's son's (Prathmesh Rajendra Bane) Mobile No. 7887800711 and the call record (CDR) shown to the said Superintendent from 05 A.M. to 06 A.M. does not reveal this number which would go to justify that calls made much before the seizure was effected at 05.15 A.M., which Respondent-Department affirms that in convenience to one aid Sanjay Aswani, the design to smuggle gold into India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccomplish so was as to impose penalty on him under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. 7. Now coming to the observation made by the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 16.1 of his order that when the said Superintendent did not respond to his first call, Appellant (now deceased) could have alerted/approached other Higher Officers of the Department but as because no such evidence was available before him, the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that such phone called was made as an afterthought to camouflage his role in aiding and abetting in the illegal activities of smuggling which stood proved but can't be said inconformity to any logic or reasoning for the very fact that such investigation as to if any other Officer was alerted by this Appella....