Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, R.N. MANJULA, JJ.
K. Rahuman Sait – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Customs, Trichy and Another – Respondents
C.M.A. No. 752 of 2010
Decided On : 25-01-2021
Customs Act - Penalty - Sections 130, 114, 117 - The court upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant for attempting to illicitly export sandalwood, rejecting the belated retraction of the appellant's statement and finding that the statement was true and admissible. The court also considered the role of the appellant in the attempt to export prohibited items and the evidence available during the search and seizure operations.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was found present in a godown where sandalwood was concealed along with Mangalore Roofing Tiles. The appellant's statement admitting his involvement was retracted after three months. The Original Authority held the statement to be true and imposed a penalty, which was partly reduced by the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant's statement to be true and admissible, rejecting the belated retraction. The court also considered the role of the appellant in the attempt to export prohibited items and the evidence available during the search and seizure operations.
Issues: The issues included the admissibility of the appellant's statement, the validity of the belated retraction, and the appellant's role in the attempt to export prohibited items.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the belated retraction of the appellant's statement did not invalidate its admissibility and found the appellant's role in the attempt to export prohibited items based on the evidence available during the search and seizure operations.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the penalty imposed on the appellant.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order dated 22.09.2009, made in Final Order No. 1340 of 2009 in Appeal No. C/339/99 on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai.
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) challenging the correctness of the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Chennai (for brevity “the Tribunal”) in Final Order No. 1340 of 2009 in Appeal No. C/339/99 dated 22.09.2009.
2. The appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration of this Court:-
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the honourable Tribunal was right in not considering the judgment of the criminal courts at acquitting the appellant from all charges is connected law?
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the honourable Tribunal was right in sustaining the penalty on the appellant and the co-accused were discharged from all charges and in the adjudication proceedings?”
3. Heard Mr. A. Thiyagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. S. Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr. T. Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent/Revenue.
4. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, allowing the appeal filed by the appellant partly and reducing the penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Act on the appellant from Rs. 25 Lakhs to Rs. 15 Lakhs.
5. The officers of the Customs Department conducted search operations on 10.03.1998, in a godown at No. 111, Ettaiyapuram Road, Tuticorin and found cartons stacked in the Southern side of the godown. There were three persons present in the godown at the time of the search. One of the persons identified himself as Nathan, hailing from Trichy, and he had employed two other persons, viz. Selvaraj and Kalkan of Tuticorin for packing the goods. The said Nathan stated that 476 cartons, which were in the godown, contain Mangalore Roofing Tiles intended for export to Singapore. The officers opened the cartons and found sandalwood sticks and billets beneath straw packing and on examination of the godown, 419 cartons were found to contain sandalwood and 57 cartons were found to contain the Mangalore Roofing Tiles. Since there is a prohibition for export of sandalwood under the provisions of the Act as well as the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act and Import and Export Policy, 1997-2002, the sandalwood, which was valued at Rs. 96,52,800/- as well as the Mangalore roofing tiles valued at Rs. 10,00,000/- were seized.
6. The said Kalkan had given a statement under Section 108 of the Act dated 10.03.1998, wherein, he had stated that Nathan had asked him to arrange two coolies to pack the tiles in the godown and accordingly, he, along with, Selvaraj, came to the godown to pack the tiles and he does not know anything about the sandalwood. This statement of Kalkan was corroborated by Selvaraj in his statement dated 10.03.1998. The Customs Officers, on further probe, found that the real name of Nathan was Rahuman Sait, the appellant before us.
7. In the statement recorded from the appellant dated 11.03.1998, he had admitted that his real name is Rahuman Sait and he came to know one Dhanapal through Raju, who is a load man. The said Dhanapal, dealt with illicit sandalwood and Raju gave him the mobile phone number of Dhanapal and he used to meet Dhanapal and discuss about smuggling of sandalwood to foreign countries and during one such meeting, Dhanapal informed the appellant that he was going to despatch sandalwood illicitl
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
