9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (8) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t time at the said shed No. 2 of Howrah Rly. Station. On examination of the wooden case in presence of said Niyamatullah and two representatives of Rly. Authority, the Customs Officers recovered 2554 pcs. of Ball Bearing of foreign origin valued at Rs. 1,01,170/- the Customs Officers also recovered one Bill No. 038/88-89, dated 26-7-1988 of M/s. S.R. Enterprises of 3/1, Mangoe Lane Calcutta showing declaration of Bush and Tube from the possession of said Niyamatullah and obtained the relevant forwarding memo of the consignment from the Rly. Authority wherein the consignor and consignee of the goods were shown as Rajan, 16, Mangoe Lane, Calcutta and Ram, Bombay respectively. On demand Shri Niyamatullah failed to produce any evidence in support of his legal importation/possession of the said Ball Bearing of foreign origin so recovered. 2(B) Sri Niyamatullah stated inter alia, in his voluntary statement tendered before the Supdt. of Customs, Barasat Customs Division, Cal. U/s. 108 of Customs Act, 1962 that he [was] working as a clearing Agent at Howrah Rly. Station. He further stated that on 26-7-1988 he had received one consignment containing Ball bearing which was sent to him by o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Company for onward despatch to Bombay by Train. He also admitted that one Bill No. 038/88, dated 26-7-1988 and one forwarding note were also given to them by said Rajen of M/s. Atul Enterprise during booking of the said consignment wherein the declaration of the goods were mentioned as Machinery goods in that Forwarding Note. Sri Rabindra Nath Pandey confessed that they had sent one gunny wrapped wooden case so booked by Rajen of their neighbouring firm M/s. Atul Enterprise. Howrah Rly Station for onward despatch to Bombay by Rail. He admitted that he knew Md. Niyamatullah, a clearing Agent of Howrah Rly. Station had booked the consignment in Rail. Sri Rabindra Nath Pandey had identified Sri Rajen, the Proprietor of M/s. Atul Enterprise. He voluntary produced the consignment Note Book meant for booking of the consignments to the Customs Officers for verification. 3. Thereafter, the appellant was summoned under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act for short). He tendered a confessional statement stating that he was one of the partners of M/s. Atul Enterprises, Calcutta and the officers searched his firm and recovered two hand-written letters written in Gujrati addr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that these were smuggled ball bearings, in his voluntary statement before the Customs Officers. He also pointed out that the appellant had written a letter to the Collector of Customs dated 8-8-1988 wherein he had never mentioned about the retraction made before the Magistrate. Therefore, he pointed out that the Adjudicating Authority had no occasion to deal with the retraction made before the learned Magistrate. He, further, pointed out that the appellant in his letter dated 8-8-1988 addressed to the Collector of Customs (Prev.), Calcutta had merely stated that he had given the statement before the Customs Authorities under threat and coercion. But he had never pointed out as to what were circumstances from which it can be inferred that there was any such threat and coercion. He, further, pointed out that the consignment was booked in the names of one Rajan, 16, Mangoe Lane, Cal. and another Ram of Bombay respectively. In the statement, the appellant had also admitted that there was no person in the name of Ram as mentioned in the forwarding note. He, further, pointed out that the ball bearings are allowed to be imported under REP Licence against export of Electric Fans appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d into to find out whether there was any threat or coercion. The appellant has boldly stated in his statement dated 8-8-1988 that it was obtained under threat and coercion. He did not mention as to what was the threat and how he was coerced to make such statement. No such circumstances are alleged except by stating that the statement given by him before the Customs Officers was under threat and coercion. There are also no circumstances in this case to show that the appellant was in any way tortured by the officials nor had he made any complaints in this behalf to the learned Magistrate that he was tortured while he was in custody. It is also not the case of appellant that he was in prolonged custody of the Department. On the contrary, the Department summoned the appellant and took his statement under Section 108 of the Act. On consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case we have no hesitation in holding that the statement of the appellant is a voluntary statement wherein he admitted that the goods in question were smuggled ones. It is further seen that these goods worth more than Rs. 1.00 lakh were not supported by any legal documents possessed by the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the above-said decision reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1631 (S.C.) = AIR 1980 (SC) 793. 7. It is thus seen that the Department has produced the substantial evidence that such huge quantities of ball bearings were found without any supporting documents and the statement of Niyamatullah also is to the effect that these were smuggled ball bearings. They were also booked in the names of one Rajan of Calcutta and another Ram of Bombay and according to the appellant himself, they are not in existence. Further, the appellant himself had admitted in his voluntary statement that these were smuggled goods. In spite of the fact that the appellant had claimed that these were purchased through auction he could not disclose the identity of the person from whom he had purchased the same nor could he produce any documents to substantiate his claim of purchase through auction. All these facts and circumstances go to show that the Department has discharged its burden cast on it and it is now for the appellant to prove that the goods in question are not smuggled goods. But the appellant has not put forth any evidence in this case except a bare statement that he had p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
