Kamal Hazra and Anil Das Vs. Commissioner of Customs - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order. the appellants are aggrieved with imposition of personal penalties of rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) each on them. commissioner vide his impugned order has confiscated foreign origin goods totally valued at rs. 1.33 crore along with confiscation of the truck and has imposed personal penalties upon the other notices. however inasmuch as the confiscation of the foreign origin goods, the truck and the cattle feed are not being challenged before me, the present order is being passed only in respect of imposition of personal penalties upon the two appellants.2. i have heard shri k.p. dey, learned advocate appearing for the appellants and shri a.k. chattopadhaya, learned jdr for the revenue.3. the facts on record are that one truck was intercepted by the d.r.i.officers and on search was found to be loaded with foreign origin goods. the statement of the driver and khalasi was recorded who deposed that the truck was hired for transportation of the goods by one shri dildar singh of siliguri. shri dildar singh was interrogated and he deposed that the truck was hired by him. in the past also he has hired the truck for carrying different foreign contraband goods; that the seized goods belong to the smuggling syndicate headed by one shri sunil ghosh, that he was himself one of the members of the smuggling syndicate. he also disclosed the names of the present appellants being member of the smuggling syndicate.4. in the post seizure investigation, shri sunil ghosh and kamal hazra and shri anil das (named by shri dildar singh) and other persons were interrogated. based upon the statements, the revenue entertained a view that the present two appellants along with other persons were the members of smuggling syndicate and the goods in question belong to them. based upon the above facts the show-cause notices were issued to the various persons, which culminated into impugned order passed by the commissioner. during the adjudication proceedings the appellants categorically denied any involvement with the seized goods or with the smuggling activities. it was pleaded that no penalty could be imposed upon them based upon the statement of co-accused in the absence of independent corroborative evidence. however the said please were not accepted by the commissioner, who imposed the penalties upon the appellants.5. after giving my careful consideration i find that though the statement of various persons raises grave doubt about the involvement of the appellants, nevertheless such suspicision cannot take place the evidence. appellants have been penalised on the basis of the statements of co-accused which in any case are in the nature of general statements indicating that one shri sunil ghosh is the head of smuggling syndicate involved in the smuggling of the goods and the appellants are the members of the said syndicate. apart from the said statement, there is no evidence corroborating the allegations made by the revenue. in such circumstances, by extending the benefit of doubt to the appellants i set aside the imposition of personal penalties upon them and allow the appeals with consequential relief.

Judgment:
1. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order. The appellants are aggrieved with imposition of personal penalties of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) each on them. Commissioner vide his impugned order has confiscated foreign origin goods totally valued at Rs. 1.33 crore along with confiscation of the truck and has imposed personal penalties upon the other notices. However inasmuch as the confiscation of the foreign origin goods, the truck and the cattle feed are not being challenged before me, the present order is being passed only in respect of imposition of personal penalties upon the two appellants.

2. I have heard Shri K.P. Dey, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri A.K. Chattopadhaya, learned JDR for the Revenue.

3. The facts on record are that one truck was intercepted by the D.R.I.Officers and on search was found to be loaded with foreign origin goods. The statement of the driver and khalasi was recorded who deposed that the truck was hired for transportation of the goods by one Shri Dildar Singh of Siliguri. Shri Dildar Singh was interrogated and he deposed that the truck was hired by him. In the past also he has hired the truck for carrying different foreign contraband goods; that the seized goods belong to the smuggling syndicate headed by one Shri Sunil Ghosh, that he was himself one of the members of the smuggling syndicate. He also disclosed the names of the present appellants being member of the smuggling syndicate.

4. In the post seizure investigation, Shri Sunil Ghosh and Kamal Hazra and Shri Anil Das (named by Shri Dildar Singh) and other persons were interrogated. Based upon the statements, the Revenue entertained a view that the present two appellants along with other persons were the members of smuggling syndicate and the goods in question belong to them. Based upon the above facts the Show-cause Notices were issued to the various persons, which culminated into impugned order passed by the Commissioner. During the adjudication proceedings the appellants categorically denied any involvement with the seized goods or with the smuggling activities. It was pleaded that no penalty could be imposed upon them based upon the statement of co-accused in the absence of independent corroborative evidence. However the said please were not accepted by the Commissioner, who imposed the penalties upon the appellants.

5. After giving my careful consideration I find that though the statement of various persons raises grave doubt about the involvement of the appellants, nevertheless such suspicision cannot take place the evidence. Appellants have been penalised on the basis of the statements of co-accused which in any case are in the nature of general statements indicating that one Shri Sunil Ghosh is the head of smuggling syndicate involved in the smuggling of the goods and the appellants are the members of the said syndicate. Apart from the said statement, there is no evidence corroborating the allegations made by the Revenue. In such circumstances, by extending the benefit of doubt to the appellants I set aside the imposition of personal penalties upon them and allow the appeals with consequential relief.