2006 (12) TMI 160 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Customs officials for search and seizure.
2. Proof of contraband goods being of foreign origin.
3. Specific provisions under which penalties were imposed.
4. Opportunity to cross-examine and fairness of the inquiry process.
5. Retraction of statements and their admissibility.
6. Concurrent findings of lower authorities and leniency in penalty.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Customs officials for search and seizure:
The petitioners contended that the search and seizure conducted by the Customs officials from Goa were beyond their jurisdiction since the contraband was seized in Sawantwadi, Maharashtra. However, the court found no merit in this argument, stating that the contraband was smuggled on the shores of Goa and transported to Sawantwadi. The court referenced a Supreme Court decision (Union of India v. Ram Narain Bishwanath) but distinguished it from the present case, affirming the jurisdiction of the Goa Customs officials.

2. Proof of contraband goods being of foreign origin:
The petitioners argued that there was no material evidence to show that the seized goods were of foreign origin. The court noted that this issue was raised for the first time and found that the manner of transportation and landing at Goa coast sufficiently demonstrated that the goods were foreign. The burden then shifted to the petitioners to prove otherwise, which they failed to do.

3. Specific provisions under which penalties were imposed:
The petitioners claimed that the show cause notice was vague and did not specify the provisions under which penalties were imposed. The court examined the notice and found it sufficiently clear, distinguishing it from the case of B. Lakshmichand v. Government of India, where proceedings were quashed due to vagueness. Here, the court found no such vagueness.

4. Opportunity to cross-examine and fairness of the inquiry process:
The petitioners contended that they were not given the opportunity to cross-examine the persons who recorded their statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The court found that Mr. Mascarenhas, who interrogated the petitioners and under whose supervision the statements were recorded, was examined and cross-examined. The court concluded that this was sufficient and that the petitioners had been given a fair opportunity.

5. Retraction of statements and their admissibility:
The petitioners argued that their statements under Section 108 were obtained under duress and should not be admissible. The court noted that both authorities below had dealt with this issue and found no evidence to support the claim of duress. The court also observed that the petitioners were not in custody when their statements were recorded, further weakening their claim.

6. Concurrent findings of lower authorities and leniency in penalty:
The court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower authorities, which had established the petitioners' involvement in smuggling. The petitioners' plea for leniency due to the passage of time and loss suffered was also rejected, as the penalties were proportionate to their involvement. An attempt to argue that the real culprits were not nabbed was also dismissed.

Conclusion:
The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, affirming the penalties and confiscation orders imposed by the Customs authorities.