1992 (9) TMI 229 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the evidence against the appellant.
2. Reliability of Sasidharan's statements.
3. Involvement of the appellant in the smuggling operation.
4. Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Penalty under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Evidence Against the Appellant:
The case revolves around the seizure of 272 foreign gold biscuits and Indian currency of Rs. 91,000/-. The gold and currency were found to be part of a larger consignment smuggled by the appellant, identified as Mammu Haji. The evidence includes statements from Sasidharan, Appukuttan, and various intermediaries. The appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient due to contradictions and lack of direct recovery from him.

2. Reliability of Sasidharan's Statements:
Two statements were recorded from Sasidharan on 9-11-1986 and 21-11-1986. The appellant's counsel highlighted contradictions between these statements, arguing that they could not be relied upon. The contradictions pertained to details about the car used and the sequence of events. Despite these discrepancies, both statements consistently implicated the appellant in the smuggling operation. Sasidharan later retracted his statements, claiming coercion, but this retraction was not supported by any complaint to the Magistrate.

3. Involvement of the Appellant in the Smuggling Operation:
The investigation revealed that the appellant was the mastermind behind the smuggling operation. Sasidharan, who worked as the appellant's driver, confirmed transporting gold on behalf of the appellant. Appukuttan corroborated Sasidharan's statements, confirming the receipt and concealment of gold jackets. Multiple intermediaries also provided statements confirming the dispute between Sasidharan and the appellant over the gold. The appellant's involvement was further supported by evidence linking him to the car used for transportation and the recovery of gold from Appukuttan's premises.

4. Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant was penalized Rs. 2,50,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal upheld this penalty, considering the substantial evidence against the appellant and the quantum of gold seized. The tribunal found that the lower authority had sufficiently established the appellant's involvement in the smuggling operation.

5. Penalty under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968:
The appellant was also penalized Rs. 2,50,000/- under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. However, considering the repeal of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, the tribunal reduced this penalty to Rs. 25,000/-. The tribunal aimed to balance the severity of the offense with the legislative changes that had occurred.

Conclusion:
The tribunal confirmed the appellant's involvement in the smuggling operation based on the comprehensive evidence presented. The penalties under the Customs Act were upheld, while the penalty under the Gold (Control) Act was reduced in light of its repeal. The appeal was dismissed except for the modification in the penalty under the Gold (Control) Act.

← Previous Next →