9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confessional statement obtained under pressure. 2. Failure to acknowledge vouchers. 3. Burden of proof regarding silver bullion. 4. Service of Show-cause Notice beyond the stipulated period. 5. Seizure of silver below 100 kg against instructions. 6. Denial of documents in violation of natural justice. Confessional Statement Issue: The appellant argued that the confessional statement was obtained under pressure without the mandatory warning under Section 164(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the appellant contended that the statement was inadmissible as evidence. The Customs authorities were accused of not acknowledging vouchers from local dealers, and the Adjudicating authority was criticized for ignoring the timely submission of vouchers forwarded by the Economic Offences Court. Burden of Proof Issue: The burden of proof regarding the silver slabs was disputed by the appellant, claiming that the Department failed to discharge it. The Adjudicating authority's misquotation of the Customs Act notification was highlighted, arguing that the burden to prove the goods were not smuggled did not lie with the appellant. Show-cause Notice Issue: The appellant contended that since the Show-cause Notice was not served within the stipulated 6-month period, the silver should be returned. The Adjudicating authority's acknowledgment of the delayed notice supported the appellant's argument for the return of the seized silver. Seizure Instructions Issue: Referring to a telex message from the Central Board of Excise and Customs, the appellant argued that the seizure of silver below 100 kg, which was against the instructions, should not have taken place. This discrepancy was highlighted as a violation of the Board's instructions. Denial of Documents Issue: The appellant claimed that essential documents were not provided to them upon request, violating principles of natural justice. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the appellant argued that reliance on the appellant's statement without granting access to requested documents was unjustified. Judgment Analysis: The Member (T) set aside the impugned order entirely, noting that the case against the appellant lacked independent evidence to prove the seized silver was smuggled. Highlighting the absence of foreign markings on the silver slabs and the reliance on a contested confessional statement, the Member concluded that the allegations were not proven. Due to the delayed issuance of the Show-cause Notice beyond the statutory limit, the appellant was entitled to the restoration of the seized silver slabs. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief to the appellant, and the Stay Petition was disposed of.
|
