9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (5) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to Customs on 27-6-1990 and were found to be 24 carat purity totaling weight 1.165 kgs. and valued at Rs. 3,70,000/-. In his statement before the Customs, City Police Inspector, Shri Man Singh on 27-6-1990 disclosed that the interrogation of Shri Sampat Kumar Singhal had revealed that he was an employee of Shri Hanuman Prasad and that the seized gold biscuits were given to him by said Shri Hanuman Prasad for onward delivery to one Shri Dhan Raj Soni. Based upon the above disclosure, Customs Officers sent summons dated 27-6-1990 to the appellant, Shri Hanuman Prasad for causing appearance before the Customs Authorities on 28-6-1990. Appellants appeared on the said date and tendered a statement before the officers. In the said statement, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is, Sampat Kumar Singhal, Manohar Lal Mehta and Dhan Raj Soni were issued show cause notice by the Customs Authorities proposing confiscation of the 10 gold biscuits in question and also proposing imposition of penalty under the provisions of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. On adjudication the Deputy Commissioner confiscated the gold in question and imposed personal penalities of Rs. 30,000/- on the appellant under Section 112B and Rs. 20,000/- on Sampat Kumar Singhal. However, the other two noticees Manohar Lal Mehta and Dhan Raj Soni were exonerated by the adjudicating authority. On appeal against the above orders before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), the appellant did not succeed and hence this appeal before the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst these persons and they have been exonerated by the learned Deputy Collector. Arguing on this, he submitted that a part of the statement cannot be accepted and a part rejected and the same has to be read in its entirety. Learned Advocate further argued that the appellant as well as the other two persons residential premises were also raided and nothing incriminating was found therein. In support of his statements he relied upon the case of Sri Punidhapu Lokeswara Rao & Md. Abdul Manaf v. CC (Preventive) [1997 (19) RLT 542] wherein it was held that retracted confessional statement in the absence of any independent corroborative material and the voluntarily character of statement being in doubt are not sufficient to establish the culpabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tract the statement from the appellant. He submitted that if the customs were to apply pressure and duress on the appellant to extract a statement of their choice there was no reason why the same pressure and coercion was not applied to Dhan Raj Soni who has given a statement to the effect that Tejabi Sona and not foreign marking gold was received by him on previous occasions. At this stage, Shri K.K. Anand clarifies that Shri Soni also retracted his statement. Shri Sethi also submitted that these are quasi-criminal proceedings and strict production of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused as is done in the criminal proceedings is not required and it is only the pre-pounderance of probabilities that are required to be taken into co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he statement of Dhan Raj Soni. I find that the appellant statement not only disclose the details about the seized 10 gold biscuits is question but also gives a detailed information about his previous transactions also. The effect of retraction of the statement by the appellant in its bail application as also by the subsequent telegram sent by his brother and duly sworn affidavit filed after his release does not by itself reflect upon the evidenciary value of the statement which have been recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. No other material has been on record to corroborate the fact that the statements were recorded under coercion and duress. The statements have been given by the appellant after he was issued summons on the day p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntary and having been given under duress on the basis of other evidence on record and not on the sole basis of retraction of the same. I also do not find any force in the appellant arguments that if the other two noticees, Manohar Lal Mehta and Sampat Kumar Singhal has been exonerated by the authorities below, the appellant should also have been exonerated being on the same platform. This is not correct. The other two persons have not been penalised as there was not sufficient material against them. Whereas in the appellant's case the evidence is not only in the shape of the statement of the co-accused but his own detailed statement is also there which corroborates the details given by the other accused in material particulars. In view of m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
