Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2013 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 249 - CESTAT CHENNAISmuggling of goods - The first appellant had engaged the second appellant to bring the impugned contraband goods from Singapore, which was procured by the contacts of the first appellant in Singapore – Department conducted a enquiry and seized the goods - Department submits that first appellate smuggled the goods through second appellant from Singapore and after conducting necessary enquiry they come to the conclusion that this was not the first time they are doing so. (i) Objection was raised to the effect that the seizure itself was illegal as it was effected by DRI officers having no legal authority to seize the impugned goods. (ii) Appellants further states that the department has not established any connection of the first appellant with the impugned goods and hence, he should be exonerated of all the charges. As regards the second appellant states that a forced statement was recorded from him by the DRI officers but he has retracted the same when he was detained in the jail under COFEPOSA. Held that – (i) It is amply clear that the IO / SIO who have effected the impugned seizures were empowered to exercise powers under Section 110 of the Customs Act by the Director of Revenue Intelligence who in turn was appointed by Central Government under Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962 to be the Collector of Customs with all India jurisdiction. (ii) After hearing both sides and going by various statements obtained in the course of investigation, it can reasonably be concluded that the first appellant had engaged the second appellant to bring the impugned contraband goods from Singapore, which was procured by the contacts of the first appellant in Singapore. As regards the first appellant penalty is confirmed and second appellant, considering the fact that he was a carrier engaged on a small fee, and taking into consideration the mitigating factors such as he has no regular source of income, has a big family and no assets worth mentioning tribunal reduced the penalty. As regards the redemption fine. Considering the fact that the present contraband import was not a first time import but on earlier occasions, three such imports had been made and that the same has gone undetected and unpunished, I see no reason for reducing the redemption fine. Accordingly, Appeal is partly allowed by reducing the penalty & dismissed.
|