2018 (5) TMI 453 - HC - Customs

Principles of Natural Justice - Whether the fact that only because statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 are admissible in evidence, ipso facto immune the investigating authority or its officers from examination / cross-examination by the noticees? - Held that - the company, i.e. M/s Alliance Strategies Limited, thereafter did not file any contempt or another application stating that the documents or photocopy of eight files were not furnished. Neither this plea was raised before the CESTAT. Even copy of the order dated 13th August, 2014 passed by the Ld. Single Judge of this High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4494/2014 was not filed before the CESTAT. Findings of the CESTAT affirming the order-in-original are factual, do not require re-examination or reappraisal, as the findings in the order dated 5th May, 2014 are clear and categoric - The factual findings on forgery are not perverse or illogical. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to factual findings of forged WPC licenses
2. Admissibility of statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962
3. Search conducted by unauthorized officer under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962
4. Imposition of penalty for forgery under the Customs Act, 1962

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to factual findings of forged WPC licenses
The order-in-original dated 5th May, 2014 found that wireless transmitting/receiving apparatus and satellite communication equipment were imported against forged WPC licenses. The appellants contested the findings, arguing that the licenses were genuine. However, evidence presented included seized documents, statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, and recovered items like duplicate rubber stamps. The CESTAT affirmed the findings, concluding that the WPC licenses were indeed forged.

Issue 2: Admissibility of statements under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962
The appellants raised concerns about the admissibility of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act as the sole basis for imposing penalties. They questioned the immunity of investigating authorities from examination or cross-examination. However, the court noted that ample evidence beyond statements existed, such as distinct rubber stamps on genuine and forged licenses, supporting the conclusion of forgery.

Issue 3: Search conducted by unauthorized officer under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962
The appellants argued that the search conducted under Section 105 was invalid as it was carried out by an unauthorized officer. Despite this contention, the court found that the evidence obtained during the search, including forged documents and statements, was crucial in establishing the fabrication of WPC licenses.

Issue 4: Imposition of penalty for forgery under the Customs Act, 1962
A penalty was imposed on the appellants under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act for their involvement in the forgery of WPC licenses. The court affirmed the penalties, emphasizing the detailed discussion in the order-in-original regarding evidence and material supporting the forgery charges. The court dismissed the appeals, stating that the factual findings were reasonable and based on cogent evidence.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeals, stating that no substantial question of law arose. The findings of the CESTAT were upheld as factual and well-supported, leading to the dismissal of the appeals without costs. The court clarified that its decision did not comment on the ongoing criminal prosecution faced by the appellants.