9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chinese silk cloth, all of foreign origin, collectively valued at Rs. 4,13,02,850/-. Shri Prashant Abbot, godown keeper accepted the recovery of goods of foreign origin and could not produce any evidence showing lawful import or arrival of goods. His statement was recorded by the Customs officers where he gave the details of arrival of the goods in godown since 2-7-99 and delivery of the goods to different persons in Delhi. He stated that Kittu alias Shekar Juneja employed him on 2-7-99 as godown keeper and godown was taken on rent by Shri Shekar Juneja alias Kittu. He stated that Kittu started keeping the goods at Bhalaswa Village godown from 2-7-99 and Kittu had given him one mobile phone No. 9811045726, on which he received instructions from Kittu. All the 303 number of packages, which were found in the godown arrived from Nepal by road (truck) and he has received these at godown. No documents such as GRs, billties, bills etc. were received by him while accepting the goods. Kittu had told him the method of writing the arrival of goods to different persons in Delhi and he had adopted the same method while noting the arrival and despatch to different persons in Delhi in an exercis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . After giving the opportunity of hearing and considering the defence of the respondents noticees, the Commissioner decided the show cause, confiscating the goods valued at Rs. 4,13,02,850/- and goods valued at Rs. 61,44,000/- seized during investigation. However, he allowed Shri Chander Shekar Juneja to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1.5 crore under Section 125 of the Customs Act. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs on Shri Chander Shekar Juneja alias Kittu under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act besides imposing penalty on other persons. 3. Shri Farook Razaack learned Advocate appearing for Shri Chander Shekar Juneja assailed the order of the adjudicating authority on the ground that in their reply to the show cause notice, they had clearly stated that Shri Chander Shekar Juneja had nothing to do with the seized goods and he is not the owner of the goods, nor concerned with the goods, despite that Commissioner allowed Shri Chander Shekar Juneja to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 1.5 crore and imposed penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs on him. He stated that Shri Chander Shekar Juneja has been implicated in the case by statement of Shri Prashant Abbot a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at 209, Bhalaswa village, the question of his taking delivery of the goods at Shakti Nagar, as stated by the tempo driver does not arise. Even if he has taken the delivery of the goods, he would not tell the tempo driver to tell Prashant Abbot that Kittu has taken the delivery of the goods when Kittu can himself telephonically inform Prashant Abbot. It was further pleaded that if Shri Ajit Yadav has met Shri Chander Shekar Juneja on 1-7-97 while renting out the godown, then Department could have established his identity by allowing examination of Shri Ajit Yadav in presence of Shri Chander Shekar Juneja and Shri Ajit Yadav could have identified whether the person who actually met him was Shri Chander Shekar Juneja or not. But no such identification was done nor opportunity of examining Shri Ajit Yadav was provided by the Department. He relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of State (Delhi Admn.) v. V.C. Shukla [AIR 1980 SC 1382] where it was held that identification of a person by witnesses for first time in a Court, without being tested by a proper test identification parade is value less. He stated that none of these persons who had spoken that Shri Chander Shekar J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbers which were given by Shri Prashant Abbot as used by Shri Chander Shekar Juneja were also not found belonging to Shri Chander Shekar Juneja as no inquiry report of ownership of such phones was indicated in the show cause notice and the adjudicating order. He, therefore, pleaded that Shri Chander Shekar Juneja has nothing to do with impugned smuggled goods. Therefore, he is not liable for any penalty. 5. Shri S.M. Tata, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue, reiterated the findings of the Commissioner. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that to connect Shri Chander Shekar Juneja with the seized/confiscated goods the evidence against him is in the form of statement of Shri Prashant Abbot and Shri Ajit Yadav whereas the appellants has produced the evidence in the form of affidavit of Shri Abdul Hamid, advocate at Calcutta and also legal document signed by the appellants on 2-7-99 at Calcutta in the form of lease deed and on 5-7-99 in the form of power of attorney. Therefore, to examine the veracity of statement of Shri Prashant Abbot, we have to see whether it has been corroborated by other evidence. We find that Shri Prashant Abbot in his st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
