9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im. 2. On 24-4-2000, on receipt of information, the officers of the New Custom House, New Delhi, conducted raid on the residential premises of the appellant located on the first floor, T-7, DCM Road, Kishan Ganj, Delhi and effected the recovery of 3 zipper rexin carry bags which contained 928 computer parts of foreign origin. The officers seized all those computer parts and prepared the panchnama in that regard on the spot, as the appellant could not produce documents regarding the legal import and possession of those parts. This seizure was made under Section 110 of the Customs Act on the plea that the parts had been smuggled into India illegally and were liable for confiscation under the Customs Act. The recovery of the parts was not di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in our view, the learned Commissioner was wrongly influenced by these factors while passing the impugned order. The goods were seized from the residential premises situated on the first floor, T-7 DCM Road, Kishan Ganj, Delhi. The appellant was admittedly at that time not the owner of the premises. There is nothing on the record to suggest if any attempt was made to ascertain the ownership of that premises. At the time of raid, besides the appellant, another person, Mohd. Sohail was also present in that very room from where the goods were seized. That being so, it could not be said that the seized goods were recovered from the possession of the appellant alone. Rather legally, the recovery was in fact effected from the joint possession of b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfessional statement was retracted by the appellant when he was produced before the Court by alleging that the same was obtained from him under duress, and torture and as such, it did not carry much credence and value. No attempt was made to catch hold of Hasim. No evidence had been also collected to seek corroboration of the confessional statement of the appellant. The appellant in fact could not be said to have any positive personal knowledge about the smuggled nature of the goods as he never himself had gone to Nepal to bring the goods. He could not know the origin of the goods as he could hardly put his name in Hindi script as is evident from the panchnama. Therefore, under these circumstances, no capital out of the alleged confessional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
