9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... import of the detained batteries revealed that they formed part of a consignment imported in the name of M/s. Akash Hi-Tech, Chennai, in the guise of Light Melting Scrap (LMS). The seized goods had been imported in a container intended to be cleared from Concor Container Freight Station (CFS). During the transport of the container from the Chennai Port to the CFS, the container was diverted to a godown of M/s. Leo Transport at Ernavur. The used batteries had been destuffed from the container and loaded on two trucks for delivering at M/s. Shanmuga Batteries owned by one Shri P. Thiyagarajan. Enquiries with various persons connected with the transaction revealed that following a conspiracy among S/Shri R. Suresh Kumar, D. Purushotaman & A. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the consignments imported. The proceeds received would be shared among the three partners in the illegal transaction after settling the payment to the Srilankan suppliers in person at some hotel in Chennai. In their voluntary statements S/Shri D. Purushotaman, A. Senthil Kumar and R. Suresh Kumar confessed having imported similar consignments of used batteries earlier. They also intimated that another consignment of used batteries imported in the name of M/s. Akash Hi-Tech was pending clearance from customs. Each time a consignment was imported against the name of some firm with IEC code, the importer on record was paid Rs. 2500/- for the service. Details of imports already made were given in their statements. They made a margin of Rs.50,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to have rendered the batteries seized as well as those imported and cleared in the past liable for confiscation under various sub-sections of Section 111 of the Act, relying on statements of various witnesses including their own. It is submitted by the appellants except Shri P. Thiyagarajan that they had retracted the statements. All the appellants have submitted that their initial statements relied on in the adjudication proceedings had been extracted from them under coercion by the officers. Their request for cross examining the witnesses whose statements were relied on in passing the order was not allowed before passing the impugned order. In the appeal, Shri P. Thiyagarajan submitted that no goods were seized from him. Offences were f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without the requisite import licence, mis-declaring the description of the goods as LMS, mis-declaring the value of the LMS and using them to conceal the contraband solely on the basis of the confessional statements of the appellants as well as statements of witnesses. We find that statements given by S/Shri D. Purushotaman, A. Senthil Kumar and R. Suresh Kumar, were retracted shortly after they had been rendered. The statements were not corroborated by any other evidence. The contraband was not confiscated from the possession of any of the appellants. We find that having allowed the request of the appellants to cross examine the witnesses, adjudicating the allegations against them before they could cross examine the witnesses constitute a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
