9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Review of order-in-appeal by Collector (Appeals) based on grounds of review mentioned in show cause notice; Evaluation of crucial testimony of Shri Dudani in relation to the alleged offence of smuggling of foreign currency; Assessment of general corroboration of Dudani's statement and circumstantial evidence implicating the respondent; Application of legal principles regarding corroboration of evidence and inference drawn from circumstances; Determination of respondent's involvement in the attempted smuggling of foreign exchange.
The judgment pertains to a review proposal initiated by the Collector of Customs, Sahar Airport, Bombay, based on grounds mentioned in a show cause notice. The respondent, represented by an advocate, argued that there was insufficient evidence to link him with the alleged offence of smuggling foreign currency. The advocate emphasized the lack of independent corroboration for Dudani's statement implicating the respondent. However, the government noted the importance of Dudani's testimony, highlighting his ability to correctly identify the respondent and provide specific details, which lent credibility to his statement. The government also referenced Section 30 of the Evidence Act, allowing consideration of a confession made by one person against co-accused. The failure to appreciate this legal principle in the appellate authority's order was noted. The government found general corroboration of Dudani's statement and considered circumstantial evidence, such as the intended delivery of currency to the respondent's brother in Hong Kong and the respondent's use of an alias, as casting doubts on the respondent's conduct. The argument that Dudani was a mere acquaintance was deemed implausible given the disclosures made by him. The government leaned towards accepting Dudani's statement as true, drawing support from legal precedents emphasizing reliance on circumstantial evidence in customs law violations. Citing legal principles from previous judgments, the government highlighted the importance of drawing inferences from surrounding circumstances and conduct in cases involving customs law violations. The need for establishing probabilities rather than perfect proof was emphasized. Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the government concluded that there was sufficient evidence to indicate the respondent's involvement in the attempted smuggling of foreign exchange. Consequently, the government held that the appellate authority had erred in granting the benefit of doubt to the respondent, leading to the setting aside of the appellate authority's order and restoration of the orders of the Additional Collector.
|
