CESTAT Quashes ₹1.5 Crore Penalty on Customs Officer in Red Sanders Smuggling Case Due to Lack of Corroborative Evidence [Read Order]

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that the penalty imposed on a Customs officer accused in a red sanders smuggling case could not be sustained in the absence of reliable and corroborative evidence.

Sandeep Kumar Dikshit, the appellant, was working as a Superintendent (then Inspector) of Customs. A penalty of Rs. 1.5 crore was imposed on him under Sections 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata.

Stay Updated with the Latest Audit Report Formats & Audit Trials Requirements! Click here

The penalty was based on allegations that he had aided in the smuggling of red sanders worth approximately Rs. 100 crore by supplying forged export documents and coordinating with a smuggling network.

The case began after a container loaded with red sanders was seized at Kolkata Port. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) carried out further investigations and linked several similar exports to a broader conspiracy.

Based on statements made by other accused individuals, including Sudhir Jha and Jyoti Biswas, the department claimed that the appellant had played a key role in the illegal operation.

The appellant’s counsel argued that he had no connection with the smuggling syndicate and denied knowing or interacting with any of the individuals who gave statements against him. It was argued that the statements were vague, contradictory, and retracted, and could not be used as sole evidence without corroboration.

The counsel also challenged the admissibility of a DVD said to contain voice recordings and documents, stating that it was broken, uncertified under Section 138C of the Customs Act, and not validated under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

The counsel also pointed out that no export documents or money were found in the appellant’s possession, nor was there any proof linking him to the mobile numbers or financial transactions mentioned in the statements.

The departmental representative argued that the statements and digital evidence pointed to the appellant’s involvement in the conspiracy and supported the penalty.

The single-member bench comprising Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) observed that the statements were unverified and not supported by any independent evidence. It further observed that the DVD had not been authenticated or properly examined, and the original documents related to the exports were not produced.

The tribunal also took note of the fact that the adjudicating authority itself had doubted the reliability of the DVD and had not relied on it.

The tribunal ruled that the penalty was based on assumptions rather than credible proof. It held that the appellant could not be punished merely based on retracted statements and disputed digital evidence without corroboration. The appeal was allowed.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates