1987 (6) TMI 220 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
2. Appellant's knowledge or reason to believe the contents of the package.
3. Weightage to the judgment of the Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore.
4. Validity of penalty imposition and burden of proof regarding appellant's mens rea.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in holding that the principles of natural justice were complied with, particularly because the statement of the driver was not made available to him. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not provide evidence that the statement was requested or that cross-examination was sought. The Tribunal found no record indicating that the appellant made such a grievance before the Central Board of Excise and Customs. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not deprived of a fair opportunity, and the finding regarding compliance with natural justice was based on an appreciation of facts, which cannot be characterized as perverse. Consequently, no question of law arose from this issue.

2. Appellant's Knowledge or Reason to Believe the Contents of the Package:
The appellant contended that the Tribunal was unjustified in holding that he knew or had reason to believe the contents of the package. The Tribunal held that this contention was essentially a request for a review of the previous order, which is not permissible under a reference application. The Tribunal's finding was based on the appreciation of circumstances and oral evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that the inference drawn from the established facts was reasonable and not perverse. Thus, there was no scope to refer this as a question of law.

3. Weightage to the Judgment of the Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore:
The appellant argued that the Tribunal did not give due weight to the judgment of the Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore. The Tribunal noted that this contention was not raised during the appeal hearing, and thus, it did not arise from the order of the Tribunal. Furthermore, it is settled law that findings of the adjudicating authority and the criminal court are independent and not binding on each other. This principle is supported by the decision in the case of Manicklal Pokhraj Jain (1986 (26) E.L.T. 689). Therefore, this issue did not present a question of law for reference.

4. Validity of Penalty Imposition and Burden of Proof Regarding Appellant's Mens Rea:
The appellant questioned whether proper criteria and valid yardsticks were applied in the imposition of the penalty and whether the Department had discharged the burden of proof regarding mens rea. The Tribunal observed that this grievance was directed against the adjudicating authority and the Board, not the Tribunal itself. During the appeal, the Tribunal considered the necessity of conscious knowledge of the package's contents and found that the appellant knew or had reason to believe the contents. This finding was based on the appreciation of evidence and circumstances, making it a finding of fact rather than a question of law. Consequently, there was no need to refer this issue to the High Court.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected the reference application, concluding that none of the questions raised by the appellant constituted questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order. The findings were based on the appreciation of facts and evidence, and no perverse or unreasonable inferences were identified. Therefore, the application did not warrant a reference to the High Court.