9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Customs Act on the basis of alleged confessions of his alleged accomplice or co-accused. (3) Whether in the proceeding for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 can retracted confessions of the Applicant be corroborated by the confessional statement of his alleged accomplice/co-accused or vis-a-vis. (4) Whether the case against the Applicant on facts and circumstances of the case based entirely on his alleged retracted confessional statement and/or the alleged confessional statements of the .alleged accomplice/c -accused and whether there is complete absence of any independent corroboration in any material particular. (5) Whether the circumstances sought to be relied upon in the adjudication order appealed against were disclosed to the Applicant on the show cause notice or prior to the adjudication order and whether non-disclosure thereof to the Applicant amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. (6) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the findings against the Applicant holding him liable to a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 is unsupported by evidence and/or unreasonable and/or are perverse in nature and whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia employees posted at the Cargo Section. 5. After the completion of the investigation, show cause notices were issued to the present applicants and the others. The Addl. Collector of Customs, who held the inquiry after affording personal hearing to the applicants herein besides ordering confiscation of the seized contraband goods imposed personal penalties of Rs. 10,000/- each on the present applicants. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the Addl. Collector, the applicants herein filed appeals 744 and 745 of 84 before the Tribunal. One Chandrakant N. Thakkar on whom the Addl. Collector had imposed personal penalty of Rs. 50.000/- also preferred an Appeal Bearing No. 844/87 before the Tribunal. 7 This Bench clubbed all the three appeals and passed the common Order dated 14th May, 1986 rejecting all the appeals. 8. During the hearing of these applications, Shri Tushar Shah the applicants learned advocate contended that the Tribunal based its findings on the retracted confessions of the applicants and their accomplices. The Tribunal committed an error of law in relying on the retracted confessions of the applicants and the retracted confessions of the accomplices. Shri Tushar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Application. He therefore prayed that the applications may be rejected. 12. We have considered the submissions made on both sides. Under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, the Tribunal is required to refer only those questions of law which would arise from the order the notice of which was served on the applicant. The Tribunal is not conferred with the power to refer any question whether of facts or law or any question of law. It could only refer questions of law that would arise from its order. It is settled law that no obligation is cast on the Tribunal to refer settled questions of law. Shri Pattekar is right in contending that the questions at Serial Nos. 1 to 4 are no more disputed questions of law. They are settled questions of law. At best, they are propositions of law and not disputed questions of law. 13. Shri Tushar Shah did concede that the questions as to the admissibility of confessional statement, the effect of retraction of confession, the admissibility of the confession of co-accused/accomplices, the evidential value of the confessional statements of the accused, co-accused or accomplices are all settled by the various decisions of the Supreme Court. In the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appreciation of evidence in its totality, we would like to steer clear of the legal position. Of course judicial precedents have a binding nature of their own particularly when they Come from the Apex Court, but all the same they cannot be invoked blindly because it is often observed that there is some slight difference in the facts and back drop of the two given cases which, when appraised critically, may call for an entirely different view and that is how that each and every case requires adjudication in the peculiarity of its own sum total. 14B. Thereafter, the Tribunal considered the various decisions relied on by the applicants and also referred to the decisions cited by the respondent. The Tribunal referred to the following decisions of the Supreme Court : (1) Ramesh v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 S.C. 940. (2) Collector of Customs, Madras v. D. Bheemal, AIR 1974 SC 859. (3) Kollatra Abbas Haji v. Govt. of India, 1984 (15) E.L.T. 129 (Mar). Thereafter, the Tribunal considered the voluntary nature of the confessional statements of the applicants. The Tribunal also considered the effect of retractions and further held now the retractions does not retract volunt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
