Case Law Details
Rafeek K.T. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Bangalore)
Introduction: In a significant decision, CESTAT Bangalore has ruled in the case of Rafeek K.T. vs Commissioner of Customs that retracted statements without corroborative evidence are insufficient for imposing penalties under Sections 112 and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants contested the penalties imposed by the Adjudication Authority, arguing that the findings lacked admissible evidence and any act of omission on their part to abet the illegal import of goods by M/s Pushpa Telecom through undervaluation.
Detailed Analysis:
The appellants challenged the order of the Adjudication Authority, emphasizing the absence of concrete evidence supporting the allegations of abatement. The proceedings were initiated based on the statement of Shri Xavier, which did not assert that the appellants used the license of M/s Pushpa Telecom. The appellants contended that there was no evidence of their involvement in undervaluation, such as the preparation of invoices.
The learned counsel for the appellants referred to a relevant judgment by the Tribunal in the matter of Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow V/s Sanjay Soni, highlighting that penalties cannot be imposed solely on hearsay evidence or the incriminating statement of a co-accused without other corroborative evidence. The judgment stressed the need for cogent explanations and the importance of corroborative evidence.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
