1. Appellant employed as a cleaner with Air India at Sahar Airport, Bombay was imposed a penalty of Rs. 25000 under the provision of Section 112 (a) & (b) of the Customs Act 1962 as the Commissioner found him to be involved in the smuggling of 24 gold bars of 10 lakhs each seized on 29.01.1997 by Air intelligence officer of interception of Shri P.N. Sugunan a cleaner employed with Air India on board the Air Craft AI-475, NARMADA which had earlier arrived from Singapore Via Madras. The gold confiscated was found in a brown white packet in the under wear of said Shri Sugunan. Shri Sugunan informed the officers in presence of panchas and Air India Security Officers that he had collected the packet from back rest of Seat No. 7-D of the Aircraft & had concealed it in his under wear. In his statement, he discharged further that he was informed, by the appellant herein, that both of them have to attend to AI 475. While passengers were alighting from the aircraft he was informed that there was one packet hidden the back seat No. 7D of the aircraft & if they (ie Sugunan& appellant) could remove the said packet successfully and hand it over to him (appellant) outside the Customs Exit Gate, he (Sugunan) would get paid Rs. 1000/- for the errand. Shri Raghavan (appellant) & Sugunan entered the aircraft & were doing the cleaning job. The Air India securities intercepted him (Sugunan) & informed the Air Intelligence Officer who seized the gold.2. a) While Suganan was intercepted & was being searched, Raghavan absconded from that place where he was on over time duty, at that time of interception. The summons sent by Custom officer to his address was returned with remarks "Not claimed." b) On 12.3.97 the appellant reported for duty in his statement he admitted that one Rasheed had called him on 29.1.97 & informed him on that date about seat No. 7 D of the Aircraft having the gold packet.
This was the same Rasheed who had met him earlier at Dadar & offered him the job of removing the packet from the Air Craft. He asked Suganan, who agreed to do the job of removal from the Aircraft.
Raghavan also admits of his absconding from his duty on learning of Sugunan's interception.
3. a) The defences of the appellant of about minor variation is his version of contacting of offering the job of removal to Sugunan & his retraction of statement have not been considered & dismissed by the adjudicator. Merely because there are minor variations about the version of Sugunan & Raghavan, they would induce us to believe the statements recorded to true & faithful account on having been given by the desponents contemporaneous. The plea of retraction & statements & admission made not reliable is therefore to be dismissed by the adjudicator. We also do so and find that appellant has knowingly engaged himself with the smuggling attempt of the gold, now confiscated.
b) The reliance of the Ld Advocate on the case of Ram Prasad (2003 (159) ELT 594 (Tri) is will not help the appellant. In that case the carrier Ld had named Ram Prasad but he had an alibi of not being well and not on duty on the day of interception of gold. The appellant herein is not disputing the fact of his being on duty on that day. His absconding from the same & missing from his known place of residence point to his guilty knowledge.
c) We find therefore no reason to upset the order of Rs. 25000/- penalty under Section 112 (a) & (b) as arrived at by the learned Commissioner.