2000 (7) TMI 177 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of gold coins and gold biscuit under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Confiscation of Indian currency under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Admissibility and reliability of the appellant's statement dated 6-8-1992.
4. Validity of baggage receipts and other evidence provided by the appellant.
5. Allegations of coercion and physical torture by DRI officers.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation of Gold Coins and Gold Biscuit:
The Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, ordered the absolute confiscation of 2432 gold coins and one foreign-marked gold biscuit under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant was unable to produce any document to show licit import of the gold during the search conducted by DRI officers on 6-8-1992. The appellant admitted in his statement that these items were part of smuggled gold received from Dubai and sold in India.

2. Confiscation of Indian Currency:
An amount of Rs. 22,30,000/- was confiscated under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962, as it was deemed to be the sale proceeds of smuggled gold. The appellant claimed that this amount was the commission from the sale of smuggled gold coins.

3. Admissibility and Reliability of the Appellant's Statement:
The appellant argued that his statement dated 6-8-1992 was obtained under coercion and physical torture by DRI officers. Evidence including a letter dated 7-8-1992 to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) and a medical report from the Central Jail, Tihar, supported the appellant's claim of physical injuries. The Tribunal found that the statement was indeed obtained under coercion and could not be relied upon.

4. Validity of Baggage Receipts and Other Evidence:
The appellant provided baggage receipts and affidavits from NRIs to prove the licit import of the gold coins and gold biscuit. The NRIs confirmed that they had brought the gold coins to India and entrusted them to the appellant for sale. The Tribunal found that these documents, along with the statements and affidavits, made the appellant's claim of legal import plausible. Discrepancies in the baggage receipts were considered clerical errors and did not significantly undermine their evidentiary value.

5. Allegations of Coercion and Physical Torture:
The Tribunal examined the appellant's claim of coercion and physical torture. The medical report and the appellant's letter to the ACMM corroborated the allegations of physical injuries inflicted by DRI officers. The Tribunal concluded that the initial statement dated 6-8-1992 was retracted and obtained under coercion, making it unreliable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order for the following reasons:
(i) The statement relied upon by the Department was retracted and obtained under coercion, making it unreliable.
(ii) The evidence produced by the appellant, including baggage receipts, statements, and affidavits of NRIs, made the claim of legal import plausible.
(iii) The discrepancies in the baggage receipts did not significantly undermine their evidentiary value.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and any consequential relief was directed to be provided to the appellant.

← Previous Next →