2012 (9) TMI 570 - HC - Customs

Revision petitions - personal penalty - custom officers had intercepted one passenger Krishan Kumar Gupta with foreign currency - passenger Shri Krishan Kumar Gupta had stated that the seized foreign currency was handed over to him by Shri Rajeev Wadhwa Director M/s. Mahavir Forex (P) Ltd. The second applicant Shri Sanjeev Wadhwa is another Director of said company. Both the applicant failed to appear before Customs for tendering their statement despite repeated summons Held that - What extent the said statement is admissible against a third party when the said third party has not been given right to cross-examination - petitioners have been implicated only on the basis of the statement by the third person - order does not even refer to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, evidence/material relied upon by the petitioners and deal with them - matter is remanded to the Joint Secretary, Government of India, for fresh adjudication

Summary

Issues:
Revision petitions under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 against personal penalty orders. Scope and admissibility of statements under Section 108 of the Act against third parties.

Analysis:

1. The petitioners filed revision petitions under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 against personal penalty orders imposed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs and confirmed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The impugned order recorded how a passenger was intercepted with foreign and Indian currency, implicating the petitioners who were directors of a company. The Government upheld the orders-in-appeal, finding the petitioners involved in illegal exportation of foreign currency.

2. The learned counsel highlighted issues regarding the scope and admissibility of statements under Section 108 of the Act against third parties without the right to cross-examination. The petitioners argued they were falsely implicated based on a third person's statement. The impugned order by the Joint Secretary lacked reasons and failed to address submissions, evidence, and legal contentions. In contrast, the order by the Additional Commissioner of Customs was detailed and discussed various aspects, including legal issues raised by the petitioners.

3. Due to the lack of reasoning and discussion in the impugned order, it was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. The petitioners were directed to appear before the Joint Secretary for a new hearing. The court clarified that this decision did not imply any judgment on the merits of the parties' contentions. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

This judgment addressed the revision petitions against personal penalty orders under the Customs Act, focusing on the admissibility of statements under Section 108 against third parties. It emphasized the importance of providing detailed reasoning in quasi-judicial orders and remanded the case for fresh adjudication due to the lack of proper analysis in the impugned order.