9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (4) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsuant to the above information, on their reaching at Calcutta Airport on 8-9-1980, they were intercepted by the Customs Officers and as a result of search some precious stones, diamonds and synthetic stones were recovered from their baggage as well as their persons. The value of the seized goods recovered from the pssession of the two applicants was Rs. 1.86 lakhs. Their voluntary statements were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act on the date of seizure, i.e. 8-9-1980. Later on, on 17-9-1980 letters were sent by them stating that their statements were taken under coercion and threat. Show cause notice was also issued to them and they replied to the same. After adjudication proceedings, the learned Additional Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on Shri Kothari and Rs. 20,000/- on Smt. Kothari. Their appeals to the Board were also dismissed. 2. Thereafter, the applicants filed the appeal before this Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the statement given by the applicant, Shri Satyanarayan Kothari is a voluntary statement. The Tribunal also held that the show cause notice is in accordance with law. It was also held that the show cause notice had mentioned all necessa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oting the points for determination in the appeal were - whether the show cause notice as issued vitiated the proceeding and the order of confiscation and of imposition of penalties on the applicants on the charges can be sustained in view of the law, facts, circumstances and evidence on record. It is seen that the Tribunal had mooted a point of validity of the show cause notice. In para 6 of the order of the Tribunal it had stated that the show cause notice was not a vague one. It also contained all the ingredients under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal also held that the show cause notice has mentioned all the ingredients. The show cause notice was also issued to the applicants and they were given an opportunity to defend the case. These facts exclude by applicants were discussed by the Tribunal and in such circumstances, there is no question of law that has arisen out of the order of this Tribunal. The show cause notice was also not vitiated, which was discussed by the Tribunal in para 6 of its order. 6. The question No. (II) reads as follows :- For that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal should be held to be bad in law as it considered the submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding the scope of the said Section 139 of the Customs Act. - Question No. (IV) is to the effect that the statement dated 8-9-1980 which was a confessional statement of the accused, Shri Satyanarayan Kothari cannot be used against him at the adjudication stage. This point of bar under Section 139 of the Customs Act, 1962 was not taken as a ground in the appeal and the same was not canvassed before this Tribunal and therefore, such a question of law has not arisen out of the order of this Tribunal. 9. Question No. (V) reads as follows :- For that retractions dated 17-9-1980 of the purported statements dated 8-9- 1980 have been rejected holding them to be belated, without any details of coercion allegedly used,, afterthought, inspired by some consultant, with a view to creation of evidence for future use to extricate from the clutches of law ignoring the facts that copies of those were not furnished to the applicants on 8-9-1980, nor produced in Court on 8-9-1980 or thereafter, the applicants were greatly involved since 12-9-1980, they could get a vague idea of the contents of their said purported statements at the time of writing a statement under dictation by the Enforcemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Debi Kothari complaint filed in Court against applicant No. 1 was for total quantity of stones under seizure and charge was framed against him for commission of offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act for total quantity of the stones under seizure and applicant No. 2 was examined as a witness by the Customs in the said case against her husband while tainting the order of imposition of penalty on her. As far as this question is concerned the learned Advocate contended that sanction for prosecution of the Applicant, Smt. Radha Debi Kothari was granted in the first instance and she was examined as a witness by the Customs in the Criminal Court. These are the facts involved in the Criminal Prosecution and they have no connection with the Adjudication Proceedings. This does not make out any question of law to be referred to the Hon ble High Court. Even if the prosecution case against her was withdrawn and she was made a witness in a prosecution case before the Magistrate, that would not be a relevant consideration for this case. The Adjudication Proceedings are to be decided on the facts available in this case. The evidence to prove the guilt of the applicant in an A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
