9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncerned with the confiscation of the foreign origin goods and is only aggrieved with the imposition of personal penalty upon him. 2. The facts in brief are that on 24-12-98, one truck was intercepted by the Officers of D.R.I., which on search resulted in recovery of 38 packages of miscellaneous foreign origin goods along with 300 bags of CTC Tea. The said goods were seized by the Customs Officers on a reasonable belief that the same were smuggled and CTC Tea was used for concealing the smuggled items. 3. During the course of investigation, the statements of various persons were recorded. As a result of disclosures made in the said statements, the residential premises of the appellant was also put to search and some miscellaneous foreign ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, the said statements are in the nature of hearsay evidence, inasmuch as the driver has only deposed that somebody had told him that Shri Sunil Ghosh was the owner of the goods. As such, he submitted that the impugned Order imposing personal penalty upon the appellant be set aside. 6. I have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, learned S.D.R., for the Revenue. 7. After going through the impugned Order, I find that the adjudicating authority has based his decision on the statements of the various persons. However, going through the statements, I find that the disclosures made by the said persons, are not based upon their direct knowledge. For example, the statement of Shri Abrar Khan who was found present in the truck at the time of interc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments of various persons as reproduced above show that the name of Shri Sunil Ghosh had been taken by all these persons based upon the information given to them by a third person. Nobody has said that they have direct information about Shri Sunil Ghosh being the owner of the goods. As rightly argued by Shri K.P. Dey, learned Advocate for the appellant that such statements which, in turn, are based upon the information given by the other person, would come in the category of hearsay evidence. There is no corroboration come from any independent source. Such hearsay evidence is a weak evidence for holding the appellant guilty in the absence of any independent corroborative evidence. As such, by extending the benefit of doubt, I set aside the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
