9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (5) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at on 10-10-1995, fifteen Gunny bundles were seized by the Customs officials from Platform No. 8 of Old Delhi Railway Station in the reasonable belief that they contained smuggled goods. On opening the said bundles it was found that they contained 5,730 cartons of `Classic brand of American blend cigarettes and 930 pieces of Tiger brand Torches of foreign origin, collectively valued at Rs. 11,73,900/-. The three present appellants, who according to the Officers of the Department, were roaming around the bundles in a suspicious manner, were apprehended and interrogated under Section 108 of the Customs Act on the date of the seizure. Appellant Shri Rattan Banik in his statement admitted that six bundles out of the 15 bundles seized containin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the said packages were sent to him by one Shri Shamshul Huq of Dimapur; that in the past also he had taken delivery of five such parcels each on two occasions and he had made payment after selling the cigarettes on a commission of Re.1 per bundle of 10 packets of cigarettes. On the basis of further statements given by the three appellants giving more details, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the present appellants as well as to the other persons mentioned in the statements given by the three appellants. The matter was adjudicated after granting personal hearing to the parties resulting in the impugned order. 3. By the impugned order, the Commissioner found that the cigarettes and torches had been imported into India without valid impor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the said statements. Ld. Counsel had submitted that the Panchnama was not prepared on the spot of recovery of goods but at the office of the DRI Officer. Therefore, no reliance could be placed on the said Panchnama as no nexus could be said to have been established between the goods and appellants on the basis of the Panchanama. He also submitted that no reliance could have been placed on the Supreme Court decision in Surjit Singh Chhabra v. Union of India [1997 (89) E.L.T. 646 (S.C.)] where the goods had been seized from the person of the assessee, whereas in the present case the goods were seized from the Railway Platform and no material connecting the goods with the appellants has been shown excepting the involuntary statements of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Old Delhi Railway Station on the date of seizure. Further, the statements given by that three appellants under Section 108 both on the date of seizure and subsequently clearly established the illegal import of the said goods. All the three appellants had given clear and unambiguous statements about despatch of the goods from Dimapur by different consignors and their own involvement in the matter and their interest in obtaining their commission from the consignors. As regards the admissibility of the said statements on the grounds they were subsequently retracted, we are in agreement with the ld. Departmental Representative that the Hon ble Supreme Court as in Surjit Singh Chhabra case (supra) had held that statements given to Customs Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
