1993 (2) TMI 188 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of statements and drawing presumptions.
2. Tests for independent corroboration of evidence.
3. Corroboration of confessional statements.
4. Use of one accomplice to corroborate another.
5. Material particulars for independent corroboration.
6. Applicability of the law in D. Bhoormull's case to penalty under Section 112.
7. Application of in rem proceedings to in personam penalties.
8. Evidence of act or omission leading to confiscation and penalty.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Statements and Drawing Presumptions:
The appellant argued that the Tribunal misinterpreted the statement of Shri Rajinder Kumar Sharma, leading to incorrect presumptions. The Tribunal noted that this discrepancy was not raised during the appeal or mentioned in the Memorandum of Appeal. Therefore, it was concluded that this issue does not arise out of the Tribunal's order and cannot be referred to the High Court under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act.

2. Tests for Independent Corroboration of Evidence:
The appellant questioned the tests for independent corroboration. The Tribunal referenced Supreme Court judgments in Kashmira Singh and Haricharan Kurmi, which were discussed in the Tribunal's order. As these tests are well-established and covered by numerous decisions, the Tribunal determined that this issue does not require further reference.

3. Corroboration of Confessional Statements:
The appellant queried whether corroboration of other evidence should be made to confessional statements or vice versa. The Tribunal found that this issue did not arise from its order and noted that Supreme Court decisions already address the corroboration of confessional statements by other evidence. Hence, no reference was deemed necessary.

4. Use of One Accomplice to Corroborate Another:
The appellant raised the issue of using one accomplice to corroborate another. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, which clearly states that one accomplice cannot corroborate another except in exceptional circumstances. As this issue is covered by existing jurisprudence, no reference was warranted.

5. Material Particulars for Independent Corroboration:
The appellant sought clarification on the material particulars required for independent corroboration. The Tribunal concluded that this issue did not arise from its order and did not merit a reference.

6. Applicability of Law in D. Bhoormull's Case to Penalty under Section 112:
The appellant questioned whether the principles in D. Bhoormull's case, which pertain to confiscation, apply to penalties under Section 112. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in D. Bhoormull, which distinguishes between penalties in rem (confiscation) and penalties in personam (individual penalties). The Tribunal found that this distinction was clear and did not require further reference.

7. Application of In Rem Proceedings to In Personam Penalties:
The appellant argued that the Tribunal incorrectly applied the principles of in rem proceedings to in personam penalties. The Tribunal reiterated the Supreme Court's clear distinction between the two types of penalties in D. Bhoormull's case. As the law is well-defined, no reference was needed.

8. Evidence of Act or Omission Leading to Confiscation and Penalty:
The appellant contended that there was no evidence of any act or omission on their part to justify confiscation and penalty. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not challenge the confiscation order and that the question of penalty was a factual issue, not a legal one. Therefore, this issue did not warrant a reference.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that none of the eight questions raised by the appellant merited a reference to the High Court. The application was rejected as devoid of merit, following the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Meenakshi Mills Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. and C.I.T. v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd.

← Previous Next →