9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0, 2-11-2000, 27-11-2000, 22-1-2001, 21-3-2001, 1-6-2001, 5-9-2001 and 22-11-2001 at the request of the Counsel for the appellants and each time with the caution that that was the last adjournment and no more adjournment will be granted. It is further observed that Shri Prem Ranjan, Advocate appearing on 22-11-2001 sought the adjournment on the ground that he wants to file copies of the statements of Shri Balbir Singh, Driver and Shri Shrikant Tiwari, Driver. However, no documents have been filed till date. I, therefore, see no ground to adjourn the matter any further and proceed to decide the case as per the evidence on record. I have accordingly heard Shri H.C. Verma, ld. JDR for the respondents. 2. The brief facts in this case are that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the said trucks were engaged by one Shri Kake Sardar to carry the contraband goods of Shri Rajesh Kumar. Both the trucks were brought to the Customs Headquarters, Lucknow. Both the trucks on unloading were found to be carrying 342.6 kg small cardamom packed in 61 gunny bags. Both the trucks and the consignments were seized. The Customs Officers obtained trade opinion from local traders who after examination opined that the cardamom was of Guatemalan origin. The total goods were assessed at the value of Rs. 13,70,400.00. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated which culminated in the Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow passing an order dated 30-11-98 in which he ordered for absolute confiscation of the cardamom valued at Rs. 13,70,400.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants did not ask for cross-examination of such witnesses to establish that they were not concerned with the contraband goods. Therefore, he submits that the penal action taken against the appellants shall be upheld. I find force in these submissions. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the cited case have observed that a statement made before the customs official is material piece of evidence collected by the Customs officials under Section 108 of the Customs Act. That material incriminates the petitioner inculpating him in the contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act. The material can certainly be used to connect the petitioner in the contravention inasmuch as the statement of the witness clearly inculpates not only himself but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
