1996 (2) TMI 155 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Voluntariness and admissibility of the confessional statement.
2. Validity of the seizure panchanama.
3. Consideration of the statement of the co-accused.
4. Legality of the imposition of penalties under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act.
5. Procedural fairness and jurisdictional error in the decision-making process.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Voluntariness and Admissibility of the Confessional Statement:
The CEGAT examined whether the confessional statement was obtained under threat or coercion or was voluntary and admissible. The Tribunal found no evidence of physical violence or coercion. The Respondent No. 1, an educated person, had made corrections and endorsements in his own handwriting, affirming the statement's accuracy. The CEGAT concluded that the retraction of the confession was an afterthought and that the statement was voluntarily made.

2. Validity of the Seizure Panchanama:
The CEGAT found that the seizure list was signed by the search witnesses and the appellant. There was no claim in the affidavit retracting the confession that the Respondent No. 1 was forced to sign the seizure list. The seizure list indicated that the appellant was in possession of the gold items, corroborating the confessional statement.

3. Consideration of the Statement of the Co-Accused:
The CEGAT noted that Prakash Yadav's statement could be relied upon as corroborative evidence. There was no allegation of any motive for Prakash Yadav to implicate the Respondent No. 1 falsely. The statement of Prakash Yadav was corroborated by the voluntary statement of the Respondent No. 1 and the seizure list.

4. Legality of the Imposition of Penalties:
The CEGAT upheld the penalties imposed under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act, finding that the contraband gold was found in the possession of the Respondent No. 1, corroborated by multiple sources of evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the penalties were lenient and justified under the relevant sections of the respective Acts.

5. Procedural Fairness and Jurisdictional Error:
The High Court reviewed the decision-making process of the CEGAT and the Collector. It found that the Learned Single Judge had reappraised the evidence, which was beyond the scope of judicial review under Article 226. The High Court emphasized that judicial review is confined to examining the decision-making process, not re-deciding the case based on evidence. The High Court found no jurisdictional error or manifest unreasonableness in the decisions of the CEGAT and the Collector.

Additional Considerations:
The High Court addressed a new argument raised by the Respondent No. 1 regarding the lack of a finding on the knowledge of the confiscatability of the goods under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The Court noted that this argument was not raised at earlier stages and that the confessional statement itself amounted to an admission of the offence. The Court concluded that the authorities had adequately addressed the issue of the confession's voluntariness and its acceptance.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Learned Single Judge, and upheld the decisions of the CEGAT and the Collector. The Court found no procedural or jurisdictional errors in the decision-making process and emphasized the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226.