B.A. Suresh Kumar Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
The appeals were filed by the proprietors of M/s. Arunachalam Shipping and M/s. Thivya Agencies against a common Order-in-Original imposing penalties of Rs.35 lakh each under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, in connection with an alleged attempt to smuggle foreign-origin cigarettes disguised as “Malaysian Core Veneer.”
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigated a container linked to M/s. Thivya Agencies and discovered that the consignee’s premises were locked. A landlord provided information regarding the tenancy, and a show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation of goods and penalties against the appellants.
The Tribunal observed that neither the show cause notice nor the adjudication order identified the actual importer. Although a specific phone number mentioned in the shipping documents constituted a crucial lead, the investigating agency neither examined the call history nor pursued further inquiry before exonerating the person connected to that number. The Tribunal found the investigation incomplete and noted that the explanations offered by the appellants had not been adequately considered.
The Tribunal also held that allegations against the appellants were largely based on retracted and uncorroborated statements. Cross-examination, particularly where one appellant had implicated the other despite a police complaint alleging misuse of the Import Export Code (IEC), ought to have been allowed to ascertain the truth.
