9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kraborty and one Shri Basudev Das, appellant herein. The said persons were brought to the customs officers and search of person of Shri Shyamal Chakraborty resulted in recovery of 14 numbers of gold bars wrapped in black, yellow and red adhesive tapes and concealed in the pair of black leather shoes worn by Shri Shyamal Chakraborty. Inasmuch as neither Shri Chakraborty nor Shri Basudev Das could produce any documents showing legal acquisition of the gold bars of foreign origin in question, the same were seized by the officers. In his statement Shri Shyamal Chakraborty deposed that the said 14 gold bars belonged to Shri Basudev Das and were handed over by him at his residence located at Silchar with instructions to conceal the same in his sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner vide his impugned order, apart from absolutely confiscating 14 gold biscuits of foreign origin and imposing personal penalties upon various persons, imposed personal penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) on the appellant also. The said order of Commissioner is under challenge before me. 4. Shri K.K. Bhattacharjee, ld. consultant appearing for the appellant submits that the entire case of the Revenue is based upon the statement of the appellant recorded when he was in the custody of the customs officer. The said statements were retracted by him subsequently and as such should not be taken into consideration. As regards the statement of Shri Shyamal Chakraborty he submits that the same being in the nature of statement o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etails of his previous activities of indulging in transportation of the smuggled gold. As such I find that the subsequent retraction of the statements is nothing but an afterthought and there is no evidence on record to substantiate the appellant s charge that the same were given by him under threat or coercion. The customs officers would not be knowing the details disclosed by the said appellant in his various statements given during all these period, which would be in his personal knowledge only. As such the plethora of disclosures made by the appellant while giving statements before the customs officers, which are admissible evidence, cannot be said to have been made under any pressure or threat and cannot be held to be in voluntary or u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
