9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (11) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osing personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant vide Section 112 of the Act. 2. Stating that he had returned to India on 18-11-1991, on permanent basis, the appellant filed Unaccompanied Baggage Declaration on 6-1-1992 and also claimed the benefit under the Transfer of Residence Rules. The bona fide of the claim was however doubted and hence the appellant was initially interrogated vide Section 107 of the Act on 9-1-1992, when, he, though gave details about the items, reportedly failed to furnish the details about make, model number, colour and some other description of some of the items said to have come as unaccompanied baggage. On examination of goods, it appeared that though the value declared by the appellant was Rs. 46,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant filed true declaration declaring all the items that had come as unaccompanied baggage, and that none of the items declared is prohibited. He also referred to the initial interrogation of the appellant dated 9-1-1992 to show that for all the items, the appellant claimed to have purchased by himself, and the same is in conformity with the declaration filed by him. As is submitted by the ld. Advocate, the officers however had suspected the appellant to have attempted to smuggle gold, and hence detained him, when he was tortured and when no gold was found, they extorted the statement disclaiming the goods. The ld. Advocate has referred to the evidence from Sir JJ Hospital to show that the appellant had to be medically treated for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Bill of Lading, which is dated 17-12-1991 and has pleaded that the goods were shipped much after the departure of the appellant from Dubai, and that even House Bill of Lading, shows the date as 18-11-1991, though as pleaded by the appellant, he had booked the goods on 17-11-1991 before his departure from Dubai. 5. Considering the submissions and going through the records made available, there is no challenge to the fact that the appellant has qualified himself to avail the benefit under T.R. Rules, for his personal effects. The appellant has filed due declaration about the items brought as unaccompanied baggage, and there is no charge of misdeclaration, except on the ground of undervaluation. The appellant has, though declared total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te 18-11-1991. Even going by that date, the same happens to be the date when the appellant left Dubai and reached Bombay. It is not the date subsequent to his departure from Dubai. 10. Besides retracting the subsequent statement dated 10-1-1992 and 11-1-1992 by his letter dated 13-1-1992 addressed to the Collector of Customs (P) Bombay, the appellant has also produced the documents from the Hospital showing injuries, and has alleged that those injuries have been caused while extorting subsequent statements from him. The date on which the treatment is taken does synchronise with the date when he was being interrogated by the Customs Officers. That by itself however, cannot justify drawing any conclusion that the only cause for such injury ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
