Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 214 - AT - CustomsLevy of penalty u/s 114 of the Customs Act - appellant is a freight forwarder - export of non-basmati rice - prohibited goods or not - submissions made in the reply to show cause notice were not considered by the adjudicating authority - evidentiary value of retracted statements - whether case can be foisted on the basis of the statements of co-accused - recovery of incriminating evidences during search or not - recovery of fabricated documents/ passport/ stamps of government officials - charges can be levelled solely and only on the basis of uncorroborated statements of co-accused or not - HELD THAT:- It is not the case of demand of duty from this appellant under Section 28(4) of Customs Act. Accordingly, the issue of jurisdiction is not involved and the show cause notice have been rightly issued on the allegation of violating the provisions of the Customs Act including bringing of the prohibited goods in the customs area, for export, by resorting to mis-declaration. From a conjoint reading of the statements of this appellant alongwith the statement of Sh. Sinder Pal, Sh. Rakesh Kumar and Others, it is evident that this appellant have knowingly connived for money with Sh. Sinder Pal and Sh. Abhishek Gupta and others, in the export of prohibited goods, non-basmati rice, by resorting to mis-declaration and fraud. Further, admittedly in the course of various statements recorded on different dates from this appellant he has admitted the modus operandi and have stated in detail the modus operandi as well as the amount of remuneration he was getting from Sh. Sinder Pal, which leads to the conclusion that he had connived with Sh. Sinder Pal and Sh. Abhishek Gupta in the export of prohibited goods for money. The penalty imposed upon him but in the facts and circumstances reduce the penalty from ₹ 8 lakhs to ₹ 4 lakhs. So far the retraction is concerned before the Court of Duty Magistrate, the same is not of much consequence as the appellant have admitted the misdoing in his various statements recorded on various dates and such statements are supported by co-accused and also corroborated with the live consignment for export, intercepted, and forgery noticed by the Customs Officers to which the appellant has also admitted. The appeal is allowed in part.
|