9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... staff intercepted one Shri Tejraj Chhanganji Jain who was found carrying a packet containing smuggled wrist watches. After questioning him the room occupied by the present appellant was searched. No incriminating article was found. On further interrogation of Shri P.C. Jain and on coming to know that he had kept certain wrist watches in the premises of the appellant, the appellant s premises was again searched. 105 wrist watches of foreign origin were seized. In the course of the investigation the statement of the appellant was recorded. Among other things the appellant stated that Shri P.C. Jain had come to his residence and had left two paper wrapped packets. He also stated that Shri P.C. Jain used to visit his residence in connection wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re he had torn of two or three statements earlier recorded and he does not know what statement of his was recorded by the Customs Officer he had only put his signature. He, therefore, prayed that the penalty on him may be set aside. 6. Shri Senthivel appearing for the Collector submitted that the appellant s statement though recorded in English was read over in Gujarati and the appellant had signed the statement. The further submission of Shri Senthivel was that the appellant was receiving consideration of Rs. 150/- per month, for keeping wrist watches. It is very unlikely that the appellant would not have known the foreign origin of the wrist watches. If they were not of foreign origin, Shri P.C. Jain would not have paid Rs. 150/- per m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to the watches he was keeping in the appellant s house were of foreign origin or smuggled goods. The appellant s statement is self -exculpatory. He had categorically stated that he had at no time seen the watches which Tejraj Jain was keeping in his house. There is no contrary evidence. The Addl. Collector did not state that that part of the appellant s statement was not believable. In fact the Addl. Collector did not consider the evidence either of the appellant or of T.R. Jain or any other person. His conclusion is based only on the ground that the appellant was receiving Rs. 150/- per month for allowing T.R. Jain to keep the watches in his house. If there is evidence to establish that the appellant was aware of the watches being smuggl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
