Suresh Maruti Patil Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (CESTAT Kolkata)
Summary: CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal of Suresh Maruti Patil and set aside the penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- imposed under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 in connection with seizure of two foreign-origin gold bars weighing 1,000 grams each. The gold had been recovered from Rajesh Bhagat, while the Department alleged, principally on the basis of a statement made by co-noticee Ashish Lakhotia, that the appellant was the intended purchaser. The Tribunal noted that no gold was recovered from the appellant and there was no independent evidence establishing that he was the intended buyer. More importantly, during cross-examination before the adjudicating authority, Ashish Lakhotia stated that his earlier statement was not voluntary.
The Tribunal therefore held that the statement could not be relied upon against the appellant. It further found that there was no other corroborative evidence on record connecting the appellant with the alleged smuggling of the foreign-origin gold. Following its decision in Gagan Karel v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata, where a penalty based solely on statements without corroborative evidence had similarly been set aside, CESTAT held that the requirements for imposing penalty under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) were not established. Accordingly, the Rs.10 lakh penalty was held unsustainable, the impugned order was set aside insofar as it concerned the appellant, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
