1983 (6) TMI 201 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act.
2. Admissibility and voluntariness of the appellant's confessional statement.
3. Validity of the fresh show cause notice and its relation to the limitation period under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act.
4. Legal effect of the criminal court's acquittal on the adjudication proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act:
The Tribunal found that Section 123 of the Customs Act does not arise for consideration in this case. The Tribunal noted that even if Section 123 is not applicable, the Department could rely on Sections 106 and 114 of the Evidence Act. The Tribunal referenced Supreme Court rulings, including AIR 1974 S.C. 859 and AIR 1980 S.C. 593, which support the use of statutory presumptions under Sections 106 and 114 of the Evidence Act. The Tribunal concluded that the Department satisfactorily discharged its burden regarding the contraband nature of the gold, irrespective of Section 123.

2. Admissibility and Voluntariness of the Appellant's Confessional Statement:
The Tribunal found that the confessional statement made by the appellant on 17-4-1964 was voluntary and true. The Tribunal held that no question of law arises for reference to the High Court regarding the voluntary nature of the appellant's confessional statement, as the Tribunal's finding on this matter was based on a detailed analysis of the facts and evidence.

3. Validity of the Fresh Show Cause Notice and its Relation to the Limitation Period under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act:
The Tribunal noted that the initial show cause notice was issued immediately after the seizure on 17-4-1964. A subsequent notice dated 18-6-1970 was issued pursuant to a High Court judgment, allowing the Collector to proceed with adjudication. The Tribunal held that this subsequent notice did not supersede the original notice and, therefore, the limitation period under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act was not applicable. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's contention regarding the supersession and limitation period.

4. Legal Effect of the Criminal Court's Acquittal on the Adjudication Proceedings:
The Tribunal found that the criminal court's acquittal was based on the non-applicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act due to the seizing officer's use of the word "suspicion." The Tribunal noted that the criminal court did not give a finding on merits regarding the contraband nature of the gold. The Tribunal held that the acquittal in the criminal court does not nullify the order of confiscation by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal cited various rulings, including AIR 1965 Madras 502 and AIR 1966 Madras 460, to support the principle that an acquittal on technical grounds does not preclude departmental or adjudication proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the order was based on a thorough consideration of facts and evidence, and no question of law arises for reference to the High Court. The reference application was accordingly rejected.