Immigration Officer's Appeal Fails in Customs Smuggling Case.
08 January 2024
Custom Duty >> Tax Laws
Veerendra Singh, a former immigration officer at IGI Airport, Delhi, has failed in his attempt to overturn a penalty imposed for his alleged role in a smuggling operation. The Delhi High Court dismissed Singh's writ petition challenging the order that held him liable for abetting the smuggling of memory cards.
Background:
In 2011, customs officials at IGI Airport suspected passenger Rajdeep Chawla of carrying undeclared memory cards. They reportedly observed Chawla handing over a duty-free shop bag to Singh, who was then working as a JIO-II at the Arrival Office. Upon searching the office's shift-in-charge room, officers allegedly recovered a significant quantity of memory cards from the bag.
Singh was charged with facilitating the smuggling attempt and penalized under Section 112 of the Customs Act. He contested the penalty, arguing that the evidence against him was weak and based solely on his involuntary statements obtained under Section 108 of the Act.
Relying on Statements and Panchnamas:
The High Court, however, upheld the order imposing the penalty. The court's decision rested on the following factors:
- Statements under Section 108: The court acknowledged the legal validity of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act as material evidence.
- Incriminating Admissions: The court noted that Singh's initial statements, though later retracted, admitted his involvement in receiving and hiding the memory cards.
- Corroborating Evidence: The court found that Singh's initial statements aligned with the statements of Rajdeep Chawla and the panchnamas (official records) documenting the recovery of the memory cards.
Conclusion:
The court emphasized that its power to intervene in such cases is restricted. It cannot substitute its judgment for that of the authorities unless there's a clear instance of a legal error in the way evidence was appreciated. In this case, the court found no such error.
Takeaway:
This case highlights the importance of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. While these statements can be retracted, initial admissions can be used as evidence, especially if corroborated by other facts like panchnamas. Additionally, the court's decision reinforces the limited scope of judicial review in matters of evidence appreciation by authorities.