2022 (6) TMI 60 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - Racket - reliability upon confessional statement - overwhelming evidence in the form of mobile phone calls made between the appellants and the other implicated persons who were involved in the smuggling racket - HELD THAT - it is evident that the Central Board of Excise and Customs appointed the respective Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication) situated at Mumbai, Chennai, Delhi and Kolkata as Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) for the purpose of adjudicating cases as assigned to them by the Central Board of Excise and Customs from time to time. It has emerged from the affidavit filed by the respondent, that the Central Board of Excise and Customs vide order dated 10.11.2006 transferred the files relating to the Show Cause Notice dated 24.08.2001 i.e. the one in question, to the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) at Room No. 217, New Custom House. As explained in the aforesaid Affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Gurbans Singh the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication) had been duly vested with the power of Commissioner Customs (Adjudication), and was authorized to adjudicate the show cause notice as he was the incumbent of the said room/ office. Thus, it cannot be said that Mr. Gurbans singh did not have the jurisdiction or authority to adjudicate the show cause notice in question. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Review of judgment based on confessional statement.
2. Jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority.
3. Admissibility of evidence without Section 65B certificate.

Review of Judgment Based on Confessional Statement:
The review applications were filed on the grounds that the review applicants were not named in the confessional statement of Mr. R. N. Zutshi, challenging the orders passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The High Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the appellants were implicated through other evidence, such as phone call records linking them to individuals involved in smuggling activities. The Court highlighted the significant number of calls exchanged between the appellants and the implicated persons, establishing their involvement. The judgment emphasized that the appellants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their frequent contact with the guilty parties, reinforcing their complicity. The Court concluded that the confessional statement was not the sole basis for the appellants' implication, and the evidence was sufficient to establish their involvement in the smuggling racket.

Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority:
Another issue raised was regarding the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority, specifically in the case of Mr. Gurbans Singh passing the original orders. The respondent argued that Mr. Gurbans Singh was duly authorized to act as the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) based on a CBEC order. The Court examined the relevant notification appointing Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication) as Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) for adjudicating cases. The Court found that Mr. Gurbans Singh had the necessary jurisdiction and authority to adjudicate the show cause notice, as he was vested with the power of Commissioner Customs (Adjudication) and was authorized to act in that capacity. The Court dismissed the challenge to the adjudicating authority's jurisdiction based on the provided information and upheld the original orders.

Admissibility of Evidence Without Section 65B Certificate:
The final issue raised was the admissibility of evidence without a Section 65B certificate under the Indian Evidence Act. The appellant contended that all records relied upon in passing the adjudication orders lacked this certificate. The Court rejected this argument, citing Supreme Court decisions that strict rules of evidence do not apply in adjudication proceedings. The Court deemed this issue beyond the scope of review and found no merit in the challenge based on the absence of Section 65B certificates. Consequently, the Court dismissed the review petitions on this ground as well.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the review petitions, upholding the original orders and emphasizing the sufficiency of evidence beyond the confessional statement, the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority, and the admissibility of evidence without Section 65B certificates in adjudication proceedings.