1983 (8) TMI 60 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of Penalty Imposed u/s 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Admissibility and Value of Statements by Co-accused.
3. Burden of Proof and Presumptions u/s 106 of the Evidence Act and Sections 138B and 139 of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Summary:

1. Legality of Penalty Imposed u/s 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioner challenged Exts. P6, P9, and P10, where a penalty of Rs. One lakh was imposed by the Additional Collector of Customs u/s 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. This order was confirmed in appeal by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and the Government of India.

2. Admissibility and Value of Statements by Co-accused:
The petitioner argued that the testimony of the co-accused is not substantive evidence and should not have been relied upon by the officers. The court noted that the co-accused admitted their signatures but claimed the statements were made under duress. However, the petitioner's counsel did not cross-examine the officers or the co-accused on the alleged threats. The court emphasized that the petitioner's failure to deny the allegations when confronted with the statements amounted to an acceptance of the allegations.

3. Burden of Proof and Presumptions u/s 106 of the Evidence Act and Sections 138B and 139 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Collector of Customs v. D. Bhoormull, stating that the burden to establish facts within the special knowledge of the accused is on the accused. Section 138B makes statements made before a Gazetted officer of Customs relevant, and Section 139 presumes the genuineness of such documents unless proven otherwise. The court found that the respondents were entitled to rely on the statements of the co-accused, as there was no evidence of threat or duress.

4. Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The court held that it would not interfere with the decision of an administrator unless it is shown that relevant materials were not considered, irrelevant materials were considered, the relevant law was misapplied, or the decision was without evidence. The court found that the respondents had sufficient evidentiary basis for their conclusion, and the petitioner's belated retraction did not affect the value of the statements. The Original Petition was dismissed, and the impugned orders were upheld.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the Original Petition, upholding the penalty imposed on the petitioner, and found that the respondents' reliance on the statements of the co-accused was justified. The court emphasized the principles of burden of proof and the admissibility of statements under the Customs Act, 1962.