9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Time-barred reference applications under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Questions of law raised regarding recovery of goods, statements, affidavits, and confiscation of currency. 3. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty upheld by Collector of Customs (Appeals). 4. Pleas made before the Tribunal by the applicants' advocate. 5. Tribunal's findings on the pleas made by the advocate and the SDR. 6. Analysis of the purported questions of law raised by the appellants. Analysis: The judgment pertains to reference applications arising from a common order passed by the Tribunal, initially rejected as time-barred under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. Subsequently, the High Court set aside the rejection and directed a hearing on the merits of the reference applications. The applicants raised various questions of law, including issues related to recovery of goods, reliance on statements, affidavits, and confiscation of currency. The case involved a search conducted by DRI Officers in a hotel room, resulting in the recovery of textile fabric, garments, and miscellaneous goods from the applicant, along with incriminating documents and Indian currency. The goods were seized as they were believed to be liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act. The adjudicating officer confiscated the goods and imposed a penalty, a decision upheld by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). The applicants' advocate argued that the goods belonged to multiple individuals from the same village, emphasizing a discrepancy between the panchnama and the cross-examination of an Intelligence Officer. However, the Tribunal found these arguments unconvincing, considering the panchnama's clarity that all goods were in the applicant's possession. The Tribunal rejected claims of coercion in obtaining statements and affidavits, dismissing the relevance of a previous decision cited by the advocate. Regarding the questions of law raised by the appellants, the Tribunal analyzed each seriatim. It concluded that most questions were factual in nature, based on the appreciation of evidence, and not legal issues warranting referral to the High Court. The Tribunal affirmed the impugned order, rejecting the reference applications based on the overall facts and circumstances of the case. In summary, the judgment addresses the procedural history of the reference applications, the factual disputes surrounding the recovery of goods and currency, and the legal arguments presented by the applicants' advocate. The Tribunal's detailed analysis and findings led to the rejection of the reference applications, emphasizing the factual nature of the issues raised.
|
