9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under:- 3. On 18-4-1997 on receipt of specific information the Customs Officers of Nepalganj Road, intercepted a UPSRTG Bus No. UP 25 7505 at Nanpara Lakhimpur Road. On conducting search of the bus, a secret cavity near the left side of the entry door of the bus covered with a wooden box was discovered. The driver of the bus was asked to remove the wooden box and on opening the said cavity it was found to contain one bag. That bag was taken out and it contained foreign origin ring buttons. The owner of that bag was also present there and he along with the conductor and the driver of the bus, was brought to the office and there they all disclosed their identity. The driver disclosed his name as Sabahat Hussain while the conductor, the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention of the counsel is wholly misconceived and not liable to be accepted. The foreign origin of the goods in question, cannot be in fact questioned by the appellant, as the owner Surendra Kumar who was travelling in the bus, admitted before the Customs authorities that he was carrying the foreign origin goods. There is nothing on the file to suggest if he ever filed any appeal against the order-in -original, imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on him. The appellant himself in his statement before the Customs authorities recorded on 28-4-1997 admitted that Surendra Kumar was carrying foreign origin goods in the bus. He even reiterated this statement on 29-4-1997 when recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. He also admitted in his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Origin was made but there was no evidence on record to prove the restrictions on the sale and purchase of the same under the Customs Act. It was for that reason that the confiscation of the goods was not held to be legal. 9. The second case referred to, by the counsel is Mahindra Chandra Dey v. CEGAT reported in 1992 (58) E.L.T. 192 (Cal.) wherein the High Court has only observed that for proving the voluntary nature of the confessional statement, the onus is on the prosecution and should be treated as a light weight document needing independent corroboration. But this view of the Calcutta High Court cannot be given preference over the law laid down by the Apex Court in Naresh J. Sukhwani s case, supra. 10. Another case cited by the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
