1986 (3) TMI 224 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Implication based on retracted statements
2. Applicability of fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence in adjudication proceedings
3. Validity of statements recorded during alleged illegal detention
4. Involvement of appellant Khatib Abbas Saheb's vehicle in the transport of contraband goods
5. Impact of criminal court acquittal on adjudication proceedings

Detailed Analysis:

1. Implication based on retracted statements:
The appellants argued that their implication was based on retracted statements, which should not be relied upon without corroboration. Specifically, appellant Moosa contended that he was implicated by only two persons, who later retracted their statements. The Tribunal found this claim factually incorrect, noting that Moosa was implicated by multiple individuals, including L.K. Abdul Khader, M. Mohamed, Kudremal Abdul Rahiman, Parkot Mohamed, C. Aziz, K.C. Hussainare, and M.K. Abdul Rahiman. The Tribunal held that the statements were true, voluntary, and reliable, and that the belated retraction was an afterthought. The Tribunal emphasized that in adjudication proceedings, there is no concept of accused or co-accused, and statements from accomplices can be considered if they satisfy the criteria of reliability and corroboration.

2. Applicability of fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence in adjudication proceedings:
The appellants argued that fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence should apply to adjudication proceedings, which are quasi-criminal in nature. The Tribunal acknowledged this principle but found no evidence that these principles were violated in the adjudication process. The Tribunal noted that the appellants did not cross-examine the Customs Officers during adjudication to substantiate their claims of coercion and illegal detention, which weakened their argument.

3. Validity of statements recorded during alleged illegal detention:
The appellants claimed that their statements were recorded during illegal detention, making them invalid. The Tribunal rejected this claim, noting that no complaints were made to the Chief Judicial Magistrate at the time of remand. This absence of immediate complaint undermined the appellants' claims of coercion and illegal detention. Furthermore, the Tribunal found the statements to be true and voluntary, and the retraction to be an afterthought.

4. Involvement of appellant Khatib Abbas Saheb's vehicle in the transport of contraband goods:
Appellant Khatib Abbas Saheb argued that his temporary custody of the vehicle MYG 3288 should not implicate him in the transport of contraband goods. The Tribunal found this argument unconvincing, noting that multiple individuals, including Umar Saheb, Chella Tandel, and Mohamed Sheriff, implicated the vehicle in the transport of the seized goods. The Tribunal held that the involvement of the vehicle MYG 3288 in the transport of contraband goods was clearly established.

5. Impact of criminal court acquittal on adjudication proceedings:
The appellants argued that their acquittal in the criminal court should absolve them of the charges in the adjudication proceedings. The Tribunal rejected this argument, noting that the standards of evidence and the role of confessions differ between criminal courts and adjudication proceedings. In criminal courts, Section 30 of the Evidence Act restricts reliance on the confession of a co-accused, but this restriction does not apply in adjudication proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that the statements of accomplices could be considered in adjudication proceedings, provided they are reliable and corroborated.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the charges against the appellants were clearly established based on reliable and corroborated statements. The appeals were dismissed, and the impugned order was confirmed.

← Previous Next →