9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 based on violation of Section 111(d) - Challenge to the penalty imposed by Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Lucknow. Detailed Analysis: 1. Imposition of Penalty under Section 112(b): The case involves the imposition of a penalty of Rs.1,00,000 on the appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, for violating the provisions of Section 111(d). The penalty was imposed based on the appellant's alleged involvement in smuggling contraband goods into India from Nepal. The appellant challenged this penalty, leading to the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi. 2. Factual Background and Seizure: The incident occurred when a goods vehicle carrying contraband goods worth over Rs. 12 lakhs was intercepted by officers of DRI on the Lucknow-Barabanki Road. The vehicle was driven by Rajendra Prasad, with Mannu Khan as another occupant. Both individuals confessed to smuggling activities and revealed a modus operandi involving contacting the appellant, Abdul Salam, for unloading the goods in Kanpur. Despite the appellant's denial of involvement, the officers issued a show cause notice leading to the penalty imposition. 3. Identification and Participation of the Appellant: The appellant, Abdul Salam, was identified as a key figure in the smuggling operation based on statements from the driver and cleaner of the intercepted vehicle. The appellant's association was corroborated by the ownership of a telephone (No. 290900) installed at his residence, which was used for communication related to the smuggling activities. The tribunal rejected the appellant's claim of improper identification, emphasizing the clear connection established through the telephone ownership. 4. Legal Arguments and Precedents: The appellant's counsel argued against relying on the statements of co-accused without independent corroboration, citing legal precedents. However, the tribunal differentiated this case by highlighting the significant corroborative evidence of the telephone ownership at the appellant's residence. This evidence served as a strong link connecting the appellant to the smuggling activities, justifying the imposition of the penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. 5. Dismissal of Appeal: After thorough consideration of the facts and legal arguments presented, the tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the appeal. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Lucknow. The decision was based on the established connection between the appellant, Abdul Salam, and the smuggling operation through the ownership of the telephone used for coordinating the illicit activities. In summary, the judgment affirms the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant for violating Section 111(d) based on substantial evidence linking the appellant to the smuggling activities, particularly through ownership of a telephone used in coordinating the illegal operation.
|
