Full Judgment
2. Shri Banarasi Lal appearing in person submitted that he had been falsely implicated in the case and a number of agencies operate in the area and anyone might have tampered with the labels. He further submitted that his statement was recorded in duress and due to his illiteracy he could not retract the same.
3. Appearing for the Revenue, Shri D.K. Nayyar, JDR submitted that the action of the present appellant was a part of a conspiracy wherein the contraband goods have been smuggled into the country and were sought to be smuggled by fictitious firms and that Shri Banarasi Lal had abeted in the act of smuggling. He also referred to the voluntary statement of Shri Banarasi Lal, wherein he had accepted his role in tampering with the documents and that a lenient view has already been taken by the adjudicating authority.
4. While the order was being dictated, Shri S.G. Kazim, Advocate appeared and submitted that no recovery had been made from this client and that his colleague, Shri Ram Bir Yadav had filed an affidavit on 1.2.1995 affirming that Shri Banarasi Lal had not tampered with any documents and that he had been falsely implicated in the matter.
5. I have carefully gone through the matter. I find that 296 pieces of Winchester Disc Drives valued at Rs. 31,60,000/- were sought to be smuggled in the country in the name of a fictitious firm and no proper bill of entry have been filed for the clearance of the goods in question. As held by the adjudicating authority, Shri Banarasi Lal in his voluntary statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 had admitted that he had tampered with the labels on consideration of Rs. 2,000/-. He has also admitted that on earlier occasions also, he had done the same and was paid each time Rs. 2,000/-. The adjudicating authority had also recorded that the conduct of Shri Banarasi Lal had been corroborated by other witnesses and that there was no evidence on record that the statement was recorded under threat. He had also taken a lenient view in the matter and had imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/-.
6. The statement of Shri Banarasi Lal was recorded on 20.10.1993. The affidavit of Shri Ram Bir Yadav referred to by the Id. Advocate is dated 1.2.1995. I do not find any plausible reason for such a long delay. I do not find any merit in this belated affidavit of an unconcerned person with the proceedings.
7. Taking all the relevant facts and circumstances into account, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is rejected. Ordered accordingly.