9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per : S.S. Kang, Member (J)]. Appellants filed these appeals against the common adjudication order whereby penalty of Rs. 1 lakh each was imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 8-8-91 officers of the Customs Department intercepted a car driven by one Shri Ajay Kumar Goel. On search of the car 190 gold biscuits of foreign origin valued at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority. He further submitted that there is no evidence against the appellant regarding their involvement in the sale or purchase of the smuggled goods. The only evidence against the appellant is the statement of Shri Ajay Kumar Goel which is not corporated in any independent evidence. Shri Ajay Kumar Goel also retracted from his statement. In these circumstances his submission is that appeal be al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant in the sale and purchase of the smuggled gold. Shri Ajay Kumar Goel made a statement on the date of recovery of the gold and, there is no averment by the present appellant that the statement was made under duress. The statement was detracted on 14-10-1991 i.e. after two months. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Naresh J. Sukhawani v. Union of India, reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce connecting the petitioner with the contravention by exporting foreign currency out of India. Therefore we do not think that there is any illegality in the order of confiscation of foreign currency and imposition of penalty. 7. In the present case Sh. Ajay Kumar Goel made a detailed statement at the time of recovery of the gold and explain the role played by the present appellant Shri Dinesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
