2023 (9) TMI 243 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Revocation of Customs Broker License - 42,00,000 number of Gutkha pouches - prohibited item - whether appellant knew that there was Gutkha in the consignment which was being cleared from customs by his firm? - statement given by appellant under pressure - retraction of statements - HELD THAT:- The obligation of obtaining the authorisation from the actual exporter was not discharged by the appellant. This is corroborated by the statements of others involved in this smuggling endeavour. Thus there is sufficient corroboration to the confessional statement of the appellant. Therefore mere retraction of his statement cannot negate the action of the appellant. Otherwise also, the confessional statement was recorded by the Custom officer which is different from the police officer.

The retraction by the appellant cannot negate the evidentiary value of his confessional statements. Further, the denial of request for cross examination, in the face of the said statement of the appellant, cannot be a violation. It is also interesting to note that other than the appellant, none of the others investigated in this offence have retracted their statements.

The Delhi High Court in the case of Jasjeet Singh Marwaha [2009 (2) TMI 57 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that the CHA can be held responsible for the violation of the Customs Act, and not only the violation of CHALR (now referred to as CBLR).

The appellant was aware that the IEC of Shubham Garg of M/s Navrang Jewel and Export was being used by Salim Dola for export of Gutka, which is a prohibited item. It has to be concluded that the appellant was very much aware of the nature of the consignment and aware of the fact that the IEC did not belong to the actual exporter of the consignment. He had indulged in this offence for monetary gains.

There are no reason to interfere with the findings in the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.