9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the green channel and was waiting outside the terminal building. The officers thereupon located Ms. Bhatia and brought her inside and searched her, finding 40 gold bars weighing 10 tolas each concealed in her undergarments. Officers seized the gold, the clothes and shoes in which it was contained and questioned both these passengers. 2. Geeta Maciejovsky said that the gold which she was carrying was given by her mother who purchased that from the family and savings. She claimed that she did not know that she was committing an offence. Mohini Bhatia, apart from giving her details of life in Austria where she and her daughter live, said that she intended to use her savings and those of her daughter and son to settle in Singapore and later decided to settle in India, and hence had brought the gold, that they had not declared the gold to save duty. In her later statement she confirmed that 25 gold biscuits which her daughter carried had been given by her. 3. In the replies to the notices which were issued to both the passengers proposing confiscation of gold and penalties on them, each of these persons has taken the stand that they carried the gold concealed in their undergarment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cross-examination was asked for and not granted. 6. The said addition shows that when this appellant was asked to remove jeans, it was in the presence of only the first panchnama witness and not the second. The first witness is seen to be a woman Mrs. M. Augusty, the second S.B. Waingankar. It would appear that the officers out of a sense of delicacy, asked the male witness not be witnessed when the appellant was to remove part of her clothes. This is the only significance that we can place addition of the words. However, even if we assume that these words were added later, it will only strengthen the department s case that both the witnesses were present when the gold concealed inside the undergarments worn by this appellant beneath inside her jeans was found. In addition, this appellant Geeta Maciejovsky had in her statement accepted that she was carrying gold on her mother s instructions, which she had not declared to the customs and when by going through the Green Channel. The statement was not retracted for a long period till the reply to the show cause notice. The recovery of gold from her person after she cleared customs has, in our view established. 7. The next question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elating to the presence of gold in her undergarments. On this the view that we have expressed earlier while dealing with that portion of the panchanama relating to Geeta Maciejovsky s statement would apply. 11. The first paragraph of Mohini Bhatia s statement is written in her own handwriting, the subsequent paragraphs being in the handwriting of the customs officers. We are unable to accept that this shows that the statement was not voluntarily given. The last sentence in that paragraph written in Mohini Bhatia s hand says that she finds it difficult to write in English and requested the officer to write. It is true that if the appellant could not write in English, she could have been asked to write the statement in any Indian language which she knew. (She is a person of Indian origin who can presumably speak and write an Indian language.) However, this imperfection is not sufficient to render the entire statement inadmissible as not voluntary. This appellant can write in English to some extent as the first paragraph and the addition made at the end of the statement in her hand, obviously shows; she agree with the statement recorded to be correct. There is no contention that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the notification. It was contended that Geeta Maciejovsky was also eligible for the concession, since the notification does not provide that gold must be bought by either person only. This is correct. We do not consider it necessary to go into those aspect for the reason that the gold become liable to confiscation under clause (m) of Section 111 which had not been declared. 14. It was contended by the appellants that the import of gold was no longer prohibited and that therefore, it was the duty on the part of the adjudicating authority, if he was of the view that it is liable for confiscation, to permit its redemption on appropriate fine. The departmental representative draws attention to the definition of the term prohibited goods in clause 33 of Section 2 of the Act, to say that goods, the import of which is subject to fulfilment of any condition must be considered to be prohibited goods if that condition is not complied with. 15. We are unable to accept this submission. Clause 33 of Section 2 defines prohibited goods as any goods the export or import of which is subject to any prohibition under the Act or any other law for the time being in force, and excludes any such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
