CESTAT Quashes Penalty on Customs Officer Accused of Abetting Smuggling as Statement Recorded under Duress [Read Order]

The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the penalty imposed on a Customs officer accused of abetting smuggling, holding that his statement was recorded under duress and was uncorroborated.

Shri Pramod Kumar Verma, an Air Customs Officer at Varanasi Airport, was penalised under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act for allegedly facilitating smuggling of gold and foreign cigarettes.

The DRI seized contraband worth over Rs. 2.6 crore and recorded the appellant’s statement overnight after allegedly keeping him confined at the airport. A sum of Rs. 8,25,500 recovered from his residence was also confiscated.

The appellant’s counsel argued that his statement was taken in a “hostage-like situation,” after he and other Customs staff were detained overnight by DRI officials. They explained that the statement recorded on 19-20 December 2019 was given under pressure, without legal representation, and was retracted at the earliest opportunity.

Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

The counsel further argued that the recovery of Rs. 25,500 from the appellant’s residence had no link with smuggling activities, as the money belonged to his mother and was gifted for his daughter’s marriage. They also pointed out that no independent or corroborative evidence had been produced to support the allegations.

The department argued that the recovery of cash and statements recorded during the investigation established the appellant’s involvement in abetting smuggling activities. The counsel justified the penalty of Rs. 10 lakh imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the confiscation of the seized cash.

The single-member bench comprising Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary observed that the department relied solely on the retracted statement and third-party confessions without corroboration.

The tribunal further observed that the cash recovered from the appellant’s home could not be treated as proceeds of smuggling merely because it was found during the same period, especially when the appellant’s explanation had not been disproved.

It also pointed out that the appellant was not granted an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or challenge the evidence, violating principles of natural justice. After examining the facts, the tribunal found no substantive evidence linking the appellant to the smuggling activity.

The CESTAT set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that upheld the penalty and confiscation. The tribunal allowed the appeal with consequential relief, ruling that the penalty of ₹10 lakh and confiscation of Rs. 8,25,500 were unsustainable in law.

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