1985 (7) TMI 211 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of contraband goods under Section 111(d), (1), and (m) of the Customs Act.
2. Finding under Section 112(b) vs. Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.
3. Validity of holding the applicant concerned in the importation of seized goods.
4. Retraction of statements made to Customs Officers.
5. Corroboration of guilt through statements of co-accused.
6. Voluntariness of statements made by the petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the detention of a crew member with undeclared goods, leading to adjudication against the appellant and another individual. The issue of contraband goods was raised, questioning the complicity of the appellant in the importation of seized goods. The Tribunal clarified that the show cause notice referred to goods beyond those seized, concluding that the matter was factual, not a legal question.

2. The discrepancy between the findings of the Collector and the Board under Section 112(b) and 112(a) was highlighted. Despite initial concerns, the Tribunal reasoned that the Board's wording implied a confirmation under Section 112(b), dismissing the argument for a legal question to be referred to the High Court.

3. The applicant contested his involvement in the importation of seized goods, arguing against the Tribunal's conclusion. However, the Tribunal found no legal question in the conclusion drawn based on factual evidence, stating that it did not warrant a reference to the High Court.

4. The issue of retraction of statements made by the applicant to Customs Officers was raised. The Tribunal examined the retraction letter's specificity and timing, concluding that there was no retraction of statements made on certain dates. This factual determination did not raise a legal question.

5. The corroboration of guilt through the statements of a co-accused was challenged. The Tribunal explained that in departmental adjudication, such statements could serve as sufficient corroboration, dismissing the argument for a legal question to be referred to the High Court.

6. The voluntariness of statements made by the petitioner and the circumstances surrounding them were debated. The Tribunal ruled that this issue also pertained to factual considerations, not constituting a legal question for referral. Despite the application listing 21 questions, the Tribunal rejected the application as the raised issues did not present legal questions meriting High Court reference.