9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (11) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er-connected and since common argument was advanced by the learned Counsels for the appellants all the appeals are consolidated and disposed of by this single order. 3. These appeals are directed against the respective impugned orders of the Additional Collector of Customs, Visakhapatnam levying following penal- ties under the provisions of me Customs Act, 1962 : Sl.No. Name of appellant Penalty levied Under Section 112 CA Under Section 114 CA 1. Peter Daniel 16,000 1,000 2. A.D Silva 40,000 10/000 3. Babu Rao 12,000 2,000 4. D.R. Fernando 20,000 2,000 5. U.K. Mohammed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one of the appellant was present at the time of seizure. Between 1-7-1986 and 5-7-1986 statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and excepting appellant Fernando who gave an inculpatory statement all the others gave exculpatory statements. It is only thereafter on 9-7-1986 to 13-7-1986 second statements were recorded under Section 107 which were inculpatory in nature. It was contended that before a Gazetted officer when appellants gave exculpatory statement there was no need nor any justification for the authorities to record again statements from the appellants at a later point of time between 9-7-1986 and 13-7-1986 under Section 107 of the Act. The statements were subsequently retracted and ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jagadeesan and urged that the earlier statements were exculpatory and there was no need for the authorities to record statements subsequently under threat and subsequent inculpatory statements cannot be given any weight or importance. The learned Counsel further urged that all the crew members were confined in the Seafarers Hostel for more than 30 days i.e. 30-6-1986 to 5-8-1986. Placing the appellants in such wrong confinement the authorities recorded the second statements against their wish and the statements are therefore not voluntary and true. The learned Counsel referred to the cross-examination of Shri V.V. Saikumar, Preventive Officer on 21-5-1987 and urged that to a question as to whether crew members were under your surveillance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the Chief Officer Shri Arun Richard. The learned D.R. urged that Arun Richard in his statement dated 2-7-1986 stated that excepting himself, Joshi and Abdul Azeez all members of the crew were involved and connected with the contraband goods. The learned D.R. submitted that the inculpatory statements are voluntary and there is no evidence of wrongful confinement. The learned D.R. further pointed out that after telegraphic retraction by the appellants Counsel Shri Ranganathan, the appellants later gave inculpatory statements admitting of the complicity and involvement. In regard to plea of wrongful confinement the learned D.R. submitted that the Shipping Corporation of India never made any complaint that their employees i.e. the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods mentioned in the Annexures I II of this mahazar are of foreign origin and the ship s personnel could not produce any documentary evidence to prove the legal import of the said goods into India.... The master of the said vessel has also affixed his signature on the mahazar and also on the Annexures I and II of the mahazar in token of seeing them". It is not disputed that the appellants gave inculpatory statements when they were examined under Section 107 of the Act. The mere fact that the appellants earlier statements recorded under Section 108 of the Act were exculpatory would not ipso facto render the subsequent statements either inadmissible or any the less in evidentiary value. We have gone through the statements from the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to adjudication proceedings. Strict provisions of the Evidence Act and the Cr. P.C. do not in terms govern the onus of proof etc. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 233 held that It is now well settled that Evidence Act has no application to the proceedings before quasi-judicial Tribunal unless it is expressly made applicable. It applies only to judicial proceedings in or before any Criminal Court including those mentioned thereunder under Section 1 of the Evidence Act." We agree with the contention on behalf of the appellants that the Department cannot rely upon the statement of Arun Richard given on 2-7-1986 since admittedly the same was not referred to in the show cause notice nor copy given to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
