2013 (5) TMI 249 - AT - Customs

Smuggling 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.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Legality of seizure by DRI officers.
2. Involvement of the first appellant in illegal import.
3. Involvement of the second appellant in illegal import.
4. Penalty and redemption fine considerations.

Issue 1: Legality of seizure by DRI officers
The appellant raised a preliminary objection regarding the legality of the seizure, arguing that DRI officers lacked the authority to seize the goods. The advocate highlighted that the standing order did not apply to DRI officers and that a recent notification empowered them. The Tribunal examined notifications appointing the Director of Revenue Intelligence as the Collector of Customs and empowering DRI officers to exercise powers under the Customs Act. The Tribunal concluded that the DRI officers were authorized to seize the goods, rejecting the objection.

Issue 2: Involvement of the first appellant in illegal import
The SDR presented evidence implicating the first appellant in smuggling electronic goods. Statements from the accused passenger and travel company employees linked the first appellant to the smuggling operation. Despite denials by the first appellant, various statements and evidence pointed to his involvement. The Tribunal, citing legal precedents, found the first appellant's involvement established, upholding the penalty imposed on him.

Issue 3: Involvement of the second appellant in illegal import
The SDR argued that the second appellant's involvement was evident from the seizure of contraband goods exceeding his declaration. The Tribunal considered the second appellant's retraction and earlier statement under the Customs Act. It concluded that the second appellant acted as a carrier for the first appellant, reducing his penalty due to mitigating factors like lack of income and family responsibilities.

Issue 4: Penalty and redemption fine considerations
The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the first appellant, citing evidence of his significant role in the illegal import. However, it reduced the penalty for the second appellant based on his role as a carrier and personal circumstances. The redemption fine was maintained, considering the repeated nature of the contraband imports. Additionally, the Tribunal allowed the clearance of genuine baggage items for the second appellant, following a reasonable plea by the advocate.

In summary, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the first appellant's penalty, upheld the penalty for the second appellant with a reduction, maintained the redemption fine, and allowed the clearance of genuine baggage items. The judgment extensively analyzed the legality of seizure, individual involvements in the illegal import, and penalty considerations based on the presented evidence and legal principles.