9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 1120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India in the guise of Nepal import in a container bearing No. GESU5984886 (40 feet) through Kolkata Port and the goods are being mis-declared as Stationery Goods in the concerned Customs Transit Declaration (CTD) with the intention to replace the declared goods in India, the officers of the DRI initiated an investigation. The Officers located the above container at the Netaji Subhash Dock, Kolkata and subjected it to 100% examination. Upon examination, the Officers found that 649 cartons of "Gudang Garam International" brand filter cigarettes of Indonesian origin had been concealed inside the container declared to contain stationery goods. 3. After investigation, a Show Cause Notice dated 20.11.2015 was issued inter alia proposing confiscation of the illegally imported cigarettes in the guise of stationery items, along with penalty for the appellant herein for his role in the alleged offence. 4. On adjudication, the ld. adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and imposed penalties on the various persons involved in connection with the said smuggling activity vide the impugned order. In the impugned order, a penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- was imposed on the Appellant under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n be visited with penal consequence unless such confessional statement is corroborated with independent and cogent evidence on-record. If in the present case, the confessional statements of the present appellant, which were later retracted, are taken out of record. The appellant submits that there is no other evidence available on record to implicate and penalized him. 5.5. The appellant submits that it is a settled position of law that on the sole basis of retracted statement, no adverse conclusion can be arrived at against any person. Though, there are several persons accused in the present case, no one have stated that the appellant had knowingly or consciously involved himself in the alleged act of smuggling. Hence, on the basis of the appellant's own retracted statement, imposition of penalty upon him, is not maintainable in law. 5.6. In view of the above discussions, the appellant submits that there is no merit in the impugned order imposing penalty upon him and as such, the same is liable to be set aside. 6. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the Appellant played an active role in the commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ettes by way of diverting the same from Nepal bound import consignments into Indian market. Sri Santosh Kumar Prasad further admitted that he knowingly did the misdeed as per instruction of the said Rajesh Kumar of Nepal, the business associate of Sri Bhimendra Kumar Goyal alias Munna for monetary gain. Sri Santosh Jaiswal admitted that Sri Santosh Kumar Prasad contacted him for arranging godown and he allowed Sri Santosh Kumar Prasad to break open the Container No. VMLU 3707024 (20') and replace the cigarettes with the other goods in his godown for a consideration of Rs. 40000/-. As per his own admission as well as the statements of different persons concerned like the said Sri Pravin Kumar Singh, Sri Srimonta Rakshit, Sri Man Singh, Sri Akhilesh Singh and Mr. Matin, Sri Santosh Kumar Prasad appears to be the main link man of this smuggling racket. Sri Santosh Kumar Prasad arranged the CHA, the transporter, the godown and the breaking open of the container. He arranged the declared stationery goods as per CTD for the containers GESU5984886 (40) and VMLU 3707024 (20'). As per his instruction, the container No. VMLU 3707024 (20') was broken open and the cigarettes were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t he met one person named Rajesh Kumar of Nepal at Silliguri, who was a businessman of Nepal and used to come Siliguri frequently; thatSri Rajesh Kumar having mobile No. 009779818997395 was the main person of M/s Balaji Traders. On being shown the photograph of Sri Laxmi MahatoGhanuk, the proprietor of M/s Balaji Traders, Kathmandu, Nepal which appears on thephotocopy of PAN Card submitted by Sri Srimonta Rakshit, Sri Santosh stated that he had never seen the person. He further submitted that he had given the clearance job of the Nepal import cargo of M/s Balaji Traders to Sri SrimontaRakshit; thatduring the first week of April, 2015, he received a phone call from the said Rajesh Kumar to assist him in the clearance of the consignments of M/s Balaji Traders in India; thatas his own business was not running well, he agreed to the proposal of Rajesh Kumar to earn some extra money from such work; that Rajesh Kumar informed him that the documents related to the consignment of M/s Balaji Traders wouldbe sent through his (Rajesh) man and asked him to arrange for clearance of the Nepal bound Cargo of M/s Balaji Traders on 17.04.2015; thatas per the instruction of Rajesh Kumar he went to K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd instrumental in the breaking open of the container. He arranged the declared stationery goods for repalcement, as per CTD for the containers GESU5984886 (40) and VMLU 3707024 (20'). 8.6. The appellant submitted that he has retracted his statement vide his letter dated 28.07.2015. However, we find that his statement was again recorded on 04.08.2015, wherein he has reiterated what he has stated in his earlier statements dated 23.05.2015 and 26.05.2015. Thus, we observe that the retraction was only an after thought, which need not be taken cognizance as he has affirmed his earlier statements again in his subsequent statement after the retraction. Thus, we hold that the statements given by the appellant can be relied upon against him to establish his role in the offence. As the role of the appellant in the offence committed has been established based on his own admission as well as the statements of different persons concerned like Sri Pravin Kumar Singh, Sri Srimonta Rakshit, Sri Man Singh, Sri Akhilesh Singh and Mr. Matin, we hold that the appellant is liable for penalty as per Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 8.7. In view of the above findings, we hold that the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
