(1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,000.00 and Rs. 20,000.00 on S/Shri Rajendra Prasad and Vishwanath Prasad respectively, by the original authority. The same were subsequently reduced to a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 and Rs. 4,000.00 respectively, by the appellate authority.
(2.) THE main charge against the appellants was that they were concerned with the smuggling and transportation of the impugned goods. The original authority has come to the conclusion that the appellants were concerned with the smuggling and transportation of the impugned goods. His findings are based on the statement of Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma, the driver. The original authority had also given a finding to the effect that the appellants misled the Investigating Officers by giving false addresses and names. That finding was also upheld by the appellate authority. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, he had given a substantial relief to the appellants by reducing the penalties from Rs. 25,000.00 and Rs. 20,000.00 to Rs. 5,000.00 and Rs. 4,000.00 respectively.
(3.) SHRI P.R. Biswas, learned Consultant appearing for the appellants submits that there were no substantial evidence on record to implicate the appellants. The appellants were neither owners nor have any connection with the smuggling and transportation of the impugned goods. They were merely labourers proceeding to Kanpur and Delhi. He pleads that the statement of one of the co -accused cannot be taken as an evidence against the appellants. In this connection, he has referred to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Superintendent of Customs v. Bhanabhai Khalpabhai Patel reported in 1995 (76) E.L.T. 508 (S.C.), wherein it was held that the statement of a co -accused cannot be taken as a corroborative piece of evidence and the charges against the respondents not established in absence of any other evidence to substantiate the allegations.