9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gled goods was ignored – Non speaking and unreasoned order was passed ignoring the evidence and material relied upon by the parties - remit back the issue to the tribunal to re-hear the arguments and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order - in favour of the assessee . - CUSAA Nos. 3/2012, 4/2012, 5/2012, 6/2012, 7/2012, 8/2012 & 9/2012 - - - Dated:- 25-4-2012 - MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA, MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR, JJ. For Appellant: Mr. Shailendra Bhardwaj Ms. Aroma S. Bhardwaj, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Kamal Nighawan, Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. Jitender Kumar Sumeet Gaur, Advocates. O R D E R Having heard learned counsel for the parties in these seven appeals, we are inclined to frame the following subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the course of hearing no evidence were led to demonstrate that all the 7 (seven) trader appellants were strangers to the proceeding. Rather, they established their intimacy with the smuggling racket and proved their deal in the smuggled goods. Statement recorded from them as well as smuggling racket unmistakably disclosed their identity and destination of the offending goods arrived at the IGI Airport and cleared making evasion of customs duty. Other than the arguments, no logical reasons could be shown to us to infer dissociation of the trader appellants from the charge. When the proof of transport of the offending goods established destination thereof and disposal of the offending goods by trader appellant there remained no doubt to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as under:- (1) Abdul Qahar, an Afghan National, testified in his statement dated 30.11.2000 that he used to buy silk textiles from the traders who are in appeal in the present batch of appeals and was carrying the same to Afghanistan through Kuttar Exports. One of the Appellants, Anudeep Singh admitted in his statement dated 8.12.2000 that he purchased imported silk fabrics from one Afghan, who introduced himself as Khan. (2) All the appellants were in touch with Mamoor Khan on telephone. (3) Gopal Prasad Dokania in his statement dated 5th Jan, 2001 admitted that he knew Mamoor Khan and that he purchased silk fabrics from him. (4) Nitish Kedia in his statement recorded on 5th Jan, 2001 admitted that he knew Mamoor Khan but he denied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereas Mahender Jain and Mamoor Khan spoke thrice. Again Mamoor Khan also contacted Anudeep Singh at least once on this day. The next visit of Shahlo A. was on 10th April, 2000 at 9.19 AM and on the same date telephonic conversation between Mamoor Khan on one hand and Mahender Jain, Anudeep Singh, Gopal Dokania and Nitish Kedia on the other was made. These were mere illustrations while huge contact details were on record. The Table shows that whenever passengers came with heavy baggage to IGI Airport at Delhi, frequent exchange of calls took place between Mamoor Khan and Dil Agha on one hand and all the trader appellants on the other. None of the trader appellants could rule out their role in trading with offending goods. Corroborative evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ealing with goods, which had been clandestinely imported into India without payment of customs duty or by mis-declaration. The contention of the appellants, which is strenuously urged, therefore, is that penalty under the said Section can be imposed only if the appellants, traders had knowledge or reason to believe that the goods in question, i.e., Chinese silk, was liable to be confiscated. The next sentence in paragraph 27 refers to the intimacy of the appellants with the smuggling racket and it is observed that this proves their dealing with the smuggled goods. The aforesaid sentence does not carry forward and is merely a statement or an inference, which does not discuss the material and evidence against the appellants. The tribunal ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded that it does not show conscious involvement of the said appellant. The statement of Abdul Qahar was referred and it was submitted that the said statement also does not show his involvement. Even in the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Abdul Qahar had not implicated the said appellant. In the statement of Wali recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there was no whisper of the nexus of the said appellant with the offence alleged. Reference was made to the first statement of Dil Agha wherein no allegation was against Mahender Jain but subsequently Dil Agha had mentioned Mahender Jain s name. It was submitted that in the statement of Mahender Singh under Section 108, no question was put to him whether he was invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
