1984 (9) TMI 287 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Nature of proceedings under Section 129B of the Customs Act.
2. Admissibility and reliability of confessional statements by co-accused.
3. Reliance on contradictory statements from witnesses.
4. Factual inaccuracies in the Tribunal's findings.
5. Applicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act.
6. Appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of Proceedings under Section 129B of the Customs Act:
The applicants contended that the proceedings before the Collector of Customs under Section 129B are quasi-criminal, requiring the application of principles from the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.) and the Evidence Act. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the proceedings were conducted fairly and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellants guilty based on facts and materials, and the learned Counsel failed to substantiate the claim that principles of natural justice were not applied.

2. Admissibility and Reliability of Confessional Statements by Co-Accused:
The applicants argued that confessional statements by a co-accused are akin to accomplice evidence and require corroboration. The Tribunal clarified that the appellants are not accused in the strict sense, and the rules relating to co-accused evidence do not apply here. The Tribunal referred to a Madras High Court judgment, which held that departmental proceedings under Section 112 of the Customs Act are not vitiated merely by considering confessions of co-accused. The Tribunal found the statements to be corroborated by other materials and thus reliable.

3. Reliance on Contradictory Statements from Witnesses:
The applicants claimed that the Tribunal's preference for the earlier statements of the drivers over their later contradictory statements violated natural justice principles. The Tribunal dismissed this contention, stating that quasi-judicial authorities are entitled to weigh evidence and that the earlier statements were found to be true and voluntary, corroborated by other materials on record.

4. Factual Inaccuracies in the Tribunal's Findings:
The applicants argued that the Tribunal's findings regarding the relationships and roles of the appellants and drivers were factually incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the connection between the appellants and the drivers, and the interest in the vehicle, were relevant factors. Even if there were minor factual discrepancies, they were deemed insignificant in the context of the overall charge against the appellants.

5. Applicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act:
The applicants contended that Section 123 of the Customs Act should not apply to them and criticized the Tribunal's reliance on Supreme Court rulings. The Tribunal clarified that it had not applied Section 123 against the appellants and had based its findings on other facts and circumstances. The Tribunal found the appellants connected with the contraband goods on the materials on record, making the argument about Section 123 inapplicable.

6. Appreciation of Evidence by the Tribunal:
The applicants challenged the Tribunal's appreciation of evidence, particularly regarding appellant Haji Abdulkhader. The Tribunal emphasized that evidence appreciation is a factual matter unless proven perverse or arbitrary. The mere possibility of a different view does not constitute a question of law for reference. The Tribunal found no legal basis to question its evidence appreciation.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected all the reference applications, finding no merit in the applicants' arguments. The Tribunal's findings were based on factual considerations, and no questions of law arose for reference to the High Court. The applications were dismissed as devoid of substance.