9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transferred to the Tribunal under Section 82K of the Gold (Control) Act and it has to be treated as an appeal before it. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Naval vessel INS Brahmputtra intercepted one vessel Jalaram Vishwas bearing Registration No. 70/70 of Dubai on 16-2-1971 off the Veraval Coast. On questioning the crew members, it was revealed that Jalaram Vishwas carried contraband goods from Dubai for being landed at Daman in India. Accordingly the INS Brahmputtra took charge of the Jalaram Vishwas and brought it to Veraval and handed over the vessel and the crew members to Veraval Customs authorities. The Veraval Customs officers conducted investigations and recorded the statements of the Tindel of the Jalaram Vishwas, Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In addition, the Customs Officers also recorded the statement of one Shri Rashid Mohmed vide page 6 of the Collector s order. In this statement, Shri Rashid Mohmed deposed that the goods were to be delivered to the men of Sukar Naran and not to the appellant himself. However, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant as mentioned on page 8 of the Collector s order. The appellant stated in reply that he had no connection with the goods and that the customs authorities did not hold an identification to connect the appellant with the goods, particularly when there were 4 other persons by name of Sukar Naran in Daman. In pages 10 and 13 of the order the Collector had summed up the defence of the appellant. The same arguments were to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bhatt submitted that the circumstances of these cases required the search of Shri Sukar Naran s premises to recover the half Riyal note to connect Shri Sukur Naran with the contraband goods. This was not done and therefore the Collector s reliance on the modus-operandi was not quite correct. Since there was no other evidence, the advocate of the appellant did not ask for cross-examination of the tindel or the other crew members in the course of the adjudication proceedings before the Collector. Shri Bhatt therefore submitted that the Collector s order of penalty should be set aside as the same was very harsh. 4. On behalf of the respondent, Shri N.K. Pattekar submitted that the Customs Officers recorded the statement of Shri Atham Fakir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the vessel were recovered by the Customs Officers from the Jalaram Vishwas and these accounts also provided corroboration for justifying the penalty imposed by the Collector. Shri Pattekar, therefore, submitted that the Collector s order was correct and that the same should be upheld. 5. In reply Shri Bhatt maintained his contention that except the statement of Shri Atham Fakir, there was no other independent evidence to corroborate this statement. He, therefore, reiterated his request for setting aside the order of penalty. 6. We have examined the submissions made on both the sides. The appeal is against the levy of a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act. The main contention advanced by the learned a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... including the repairs to the vessel. He had given particulars of the person in Dubai and his telephone numbers, who did the smuggling in co-ordination with Shri Sukar Naran. Besides, as per Shri Sukar Naran s instructions the vessel Jalaram Vishwas was registered in the name of Shri Rashid Mohd. who was found as driver on board the Jalaram Viswas. The corroboration of Shri Atham Fakir s statement implicating the appellant is provided by the smuggled goods, including the gold seized from the vessel, the accounts maintained by Shri Atham Fakir of all the expenses, which were also seized and the statement of Shri Rashid Mohd. himself. In addition, the other crew members had also confirmed that the smuggling was done on behalf of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tha, AIR 1971 S.C. 1087. In addition, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Kollatra Abbas Haji 1984 (15) E.L.T. 129. In that case, the Hon ble High Court held that the levy of penalty on the basis of the evidence of the co-accused was valid. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, the reliance by the learned advocate of the appellant on the Supreme Court s decision in AIR 1957 S.C. 637 and AIR 1964 S.C. 1184 are of no avail to him as these decisions only caution the court to judge the accomplices evidence in the light of the case. On the other hand, in the present instance, we have seen that the statements of the crew members were inculpatory and they have been use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
