2001 (1) TMI 98 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Reliance on the statement of the appellant
2. Sufficiency of evidence for raising a presumption of goods confiscation

Analysis:

Issue 1: Reliance on the statement of the appellant
The appellant argued that the statement obtained from him while in custody was involuntary and inadmissible due to coercion and duress. Citing legal precedents like Nathu v. State of U.P., the appellant contended that prolonged custody preceding the confession raises doubts about its voluntariness. Additionally, the case of Roshan Beevi and Others v. Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu was referenced to support the admissibility of confessions made during customs inquiries under Sections 107 & 108 of the Customs Act. The appellant further relied on A. Abdullah v. The Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, emphasizing the significance of immediate retractions, injury reports, and lack of officer affidavits in determining the voluntariness of confessions. Conversely, the Revenue contended that the appellant's voluntary confession regarding smuggling precluded any challenge to its admissibility. The Revenue highlighted the lack of evidence supporting coercion or ill-treatment during custody and questioned the timing and credibility of the appellant's subsequent claims and notices. Ultimately, the court rejected the appellant's arguments, finding the confession voluntary and admissible.

Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence for raising a presumption of goods confiscation
The appellant asserted that the seized stones were not smuggled goods and challenged the department to prove otherwise. It was argued that without notification of the goods as smuggled items, the department's actions lacked a legal basis under Section 123 of the Customs Act. However, despite the stones being permissible for import, the appellant failed to provide valid import receipts. The appellant's claim of acting on behalf of Zubair, the alleged owner, was refuted by Zubair's disavowal of ownership in response to the show cause notice. The appellant's dual stance on possession and ownership of the seized goods further weakened his argument. The court found the appellant's explanations unconvincing, especially in light of Zubair's denial and the lack of evidence disproving smuggling. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue on both questions, upholding the confiscation and penalty imposed.

In conclusion, the High Court held that the appellant's confession was voluntary and admissible, while also finding insufficient evidence to refute the presumption of goods confiscation. The court's decision favored the Revenue, upholding the order of confiscation and penalty imposed on the appellant and Zubair.