9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals and the connected stay applications before us. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submit that there is no foolproof evidence on record to justify the penalties. The Commissioner s order is based on statements of the appellants, which were retracted shortly. The retractions were not properly considered by the adjudicating authority. The appellants have been penalized for their alleged role in relation to two unaccompanied baggages, from which Foreign Marked Gold Biscuits were seized by the Customs authorities. Though, it appeared to the investigators that the gold biscuits were sent from Dubai by one Shri Mohammed Rowther, the Department could not locate him and implicate him. The investigation against him did not make any headway and henc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s seized, ld. SDR submits that there is an apparent nexus between the goods and the appellants as confessed by themselves in their original statements given under Section 108 of the Customs Act. 3. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we find that the appellants had allegedly indulged in bringing Foreign Marked Gold Biscuits into India from abroad by making use of passports belonging to persons eligible for the benefit of Transfer of Residence Rules. One Shri Naina Mohammed was the person who admittedly made available such passports for a consideration. His statement is on record, which is inculpatory as far as the appellants are concerned. Yet the appellants have not chosen to cross-examine Shri Naina Mohammed. Their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 108 of the Customs Act would appear to be reliable. In this context, the Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment cited by ld. SDR becomes relevant. In the case considered by the Apex Court, the petitioner had claimed to have retracted a confessional statement within six days. Their Lordships rejected this claim and held that the confession, though retracted, was an admission which bound the petitioner. No rival decision has been shown to us. Hence, we are inclined to hold that the appellants have not made out prima facie case against the penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, though they can perhaps agitate for lesser penalties in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The plea of financial harships has also been consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
