TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e smuggling of the impugned goods. - Held that:- a bald retraction without any evidence of threat or coercion does not take away the evidentiary value of a statement recorded under Section 108 Customs Act, 1962. Having regard to the nature of impugned goods and in view of the fact that their value, we are of the view that the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority is not unreasonable or ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the impugned container was told to be near petrol pump, opposite canteen in the Import Shed examination area of ICD, TKD. (iii) These goods were informed to be loaded on specific trucks after de-stuffing from the said container. (iv) Further, these goods will be cleared under the gate pass of some other garments. As such, a team of Preventive Officers rushed to ICD, TKD, and traced out the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or adjournment and therefore, we proceed to decide the case on merits. 4. The appellant in his appeal has essentially contended that he was simply a G-cardholder of M/s. Quick Clear Agency, holder of CHA licence and was compelled to give statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 which he retracted. He had nothing to do with the smuggling of the impugned goods. 5. On perusal of rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven earlier he got complete garments cleared in the guise of premutilated rags and that he was aware that duty on premutilated rags was lower than duty on garments. Therefore, he is clearly liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. In the case of K.I. Pavunni Vs. Astt. Collector [1997 (90) ELT 241 (SC)] , Supreme Court has in effect held that a bald retraction without any evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
