9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Customs Act, and (ii) fishing boat MFB Umiyavati No. PBR 899 under section 115(2) of the Customs Act and also ordered levy of penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakhs on the appellant. By said order there was also levy of penalty on Gohel and Hodar of Rs 1.00 lakh each under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. 2. On the basis of information received by the Customs authorities, on 24-1-90, rummaged a fishing boat. They found 190 silver slabs of foreign origin found concealed beneath the middle hatch and 6 silver slabs of foreign origin were recovered from beneath the rear hatch. Since there were no documents evidencing legal import of the same action was taken under the provisions of the Customs Act. A show cause notice dated 9-7-90 was given for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He also argued that notice was barred by time. 4. As against this it is argued by Shri H.R. Krishnamurthy, the ld. D.R. that the statement given by the appellant nails him as it is inculpatory. Notice was given on 9-7-90 boat was seized on 24-1-90. Hence it is within time. He also argued that the statements of other crew members corroborates the culpability of the appellant. He also cited the case of the Supreme Court in Narender Sukhwant case. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. The statement of the appellant and other crew members describe clearly how the smuggling had taken place. This has been fully described by the adjudicating authority in page three of his order. He had extracted the averment of the appellant s statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exchange of words silver slabs were unloaded from Pakistani vessel and the same were loaded in the boat Umiyavati that he (Kanji) and two other crew members of his boat did stacking the silver slabs in hatches; that they reached Porbandar in the early morning of 24-1-90. The above extract would clearly show how the entire operations had been planned and executed by the appellant and the two crew members against whom penalties have been levied. The statements of two other crew members also corroborate the complicity of the appellant in the whole act of smuggling. The argument of the appellant that the statement of the appellant had been obtained under coercion has been negatived by the adjudicating authority in the following terms at pag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
