1992 (9) TMI 209 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-supply of documents.
2. Voluntariness and validity of statements.
3. Right to cross-examine co-accused and officers.
4. Confiscation and redemption of the vehicle.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-supply of Documents:
The appellant, Lilaram Bhagnani, contended that the documents relied upon were not furnished to him. Despite requesting these documents through a letter dated 31-12-1987, only some documents were provided. The appellant highlighted this issue in his reply on 7th October 1988, listing 11 documents that were not supplied, including copies of documents seized from the hotel, search lists, and statements of co-accused. The adjudicating officer did not address this issue, violating principles of natural justice as per the Supreme Court decision in AIR 1976 SC 143, City Corner v. Assistant Collector. This non-supply prejudiced the appellant, preventing a proper defense.

2. Voluntariness and Validity of Statements:
Lilaram Bhagnani argued that his statement was extracted under duress and coercion, citing prolonged custody as evidence. The adjudicating officer failed to discuss this claim, merely stating that the appellant's statement was corroborated by co-accused statements. The appellant's defense should have been considered, and the voluntariness of the statement assessed. The principles laid down in various decisions, including AIR 1956 SC 56 - Nathu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, support the need for statements to be voluntary and true.

3. Right to Cross-examine Co-accused and Officers:
The appellants requested the opportunity to cross-examine co-accused and officers who recorded their statements. This request was denied, violating principles of natural justice as established in decisions like AIR 1977 SC 1627 - State of Kerala v. K.T. Shaduli. The adjudicating officer should have allowed cross-examination to ensure a fair hearing. The non-allowance of cross-examination and non-supply of documents necessitate a remand for a fresh decision.

4. Confiscation and Redemption of the Vehicle:
Appellant Mohan Singh's vehicle was confiscated based on co-accused statements identifying it as involved in smuggling. Despite discrepancies in the lorry's color description, the vehicle was found abandoned, corroborating the co-accused statements. The appellant's photograph evidence was not accepted due to lack of verification. The adjudicating officer's decision to confiscate the vehicle was upheld, but the redemption fine was reduced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 12,500/- considering the appellant's financial troubles and the vehicle's deteriorated value. This decision aligns with the principles in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 108 - Laxmi Sahani v. Collector of Central Excise.

Conclusion:
The appeals by Lilaram Bhagnani and Khemchand Bhagnani are allowed by way of remand for fresh adjudication, ensuring supply of documents and opportunity for cross-examination. The appeal by Mohan Singh is dismissed with a modification in the redemption fine. The adjudicating officer is directed to provide the required documents, allow cross-examination, and conduct a personal hearing before passing a new order.