9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (12) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shahabuddin Ghowri holding Indian passport arrived at Delhi from Singapore. After completion of health and immigration formalities he reported at green channel for clearance. Shahabuddin Ghowri had two pieces of checked baggage consisting of one camel colour zipper suit case bearing tag No. SU-055549 and one blue canvas zipper folder bearing tag No. 055550. In addition he was having one brown leather brief case with two combination locks. Sh. Shahabuddin Ghowri had declared the contents of his baggage as used clothing and some gift articles well within his free allowance and only 30 Singapore dollars. On examination in his suit case and canvas bag in the presence of two independent witnesses, the misc. goods were recovered i.e. 6 calculator ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Customs Officers and following goods were recovered : (a) Foreign currency - US 220 Canadian 2 Singapore 408 Malaysian 1 Bruni 2 (b) One Sanyo two band radio-cum-cassette recorder (c) One empty suit case having false bottom. (d) 18 incriminating documents including inland letter dated 10-3-1979 written by S. Ghowri addressed to Bakshi Bal Raj Dutt, posted from Singapore, one hand written head of Hind Pak Traders, No. 220, 2nd Floor, Tanjong Pagar Complex Singapore - 2 written by Usha Dutt daughter of Bal Raj Dutt, four telegrams about the arrival of passengers. 3.2 On demand Smt. Pushpa Dutt, w/o Shri Bal Raj Dutt could not produce any evidence documentary or otherwise in support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceipt of telegram by Sh. Chopra at his residence sent by Sh. Ghowri from Singapore as confirmed from the International Telegram Office; (v) the statement of Sh. Shahabuddin Ghowri dated 7-2-1980 wherein he has mentioned that he had informed Sh. Chopra on 29-1-1980 in the immigration hall that he had brought watches along with other goods (a fact admitted by Sh. Chopra in his statement dated 3-2-1980; (vi) statement dated 30-1-1980 of Shri Ghowri wherein he has stated that the letter of Sh. Chopra (in Urdu) dated 13-1-1980 mentioned about smuggling programme. 7. The statement of Shri Ghowri recorded on 29-1-1980 i.e. day on which he arrived from Singapore and the day on which the offending goods were seized does not mention the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd which reads as follows: Your letter dated 7-1-1980 was in my hands on 12-1-1980 afternoon and noted its contents. 1 have been waiting for you on 9-1-1980 but you neither turned up nor I received any letter from you. Send your luggage in cargo to save the freight. As much luggage you can bring with you, bring it. I presume that you will receive this letter on 17/18-1-1980. I am writing this letter to you from office and I shall talk to Mr. Makkar at 8 0 clock. After my duty was over at 8 0 clock, I waited for Mr. Makkar but could not contact him. I shall try to meet him tomorrow and shall inform on receipt of your telegram or else some alternative arrangement shall be made. You may not worry. I shall be on night duty on 16, 19, 22, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t from the facts on record as Shri M.L. Ahuja who is the person said to have been informed by the appellant about the carrying of watches by Shri Ghowri has completely denied in his statement dated 7-2-1980 that the appellant informed him of this fact. The adjudicating authority has rightly held that the appellant informing Shri Ghowri of the dates of his duty at the Airport and assured him (Shri Ghowri) that there was no need to worry on any account makes it obvious that the appellant was abetting Shri Ghowri in the smuggling of the goods. Further in his reply dated 3-8-1980 the appellant has not asked for the cross-examination of Shri Ghowri or Sh. M.L. Ahuja but only asked for cross-examination in his letter dated 26-5-1984 by which time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrence have to be considered to be decided on the complicity of the accused and the Department has not taken sufficient care regarding this aspect and has not established that it was a case of abetment by aiding or conspiracy as understood in law. The order of the Tribunal in the case of Leonardo Villarico v. Collector of Customs (Prev.) reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 765 cited by the learned Counsel is also distinguishable on facts - in that case the appellant therein was aware only of transportation of gold in the vessel agreeing to abet in unloading thereof at Bombay without any knowledge about place of concealment of gold and the Tribunal held that the appellant not being instrumental in procuring gold, bringing it into vessel and con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
