9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mohd. Aziz at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad when he approached the Customs departure counter for customs clearance for the flight No. EK-525 bound to Dubai from Hyderabad on 12.09.2003. They checked his personal baggage and found assorted foreign currency valued at ₹ 1,21,06,560/- concealed in sweet boxes in his personal baggage. The officers seized the said foreign exchange from Sri Aziz alongwith certain documents including a chit with two mobile phone numbers 98481 83318 and 32776786. (b) In his statement dated 12.09.2003 given before the officers, sri Mohd. Aziz stated inter-alia, that he had financial problems as his meagre earnings were not sufficient to run his family; that he expressed his problems to one Lateef, whom he knew for the past one year and requested for his help in finding a job in any of Gulf countries; that Lateef proposed to Sri Mohd. Aziz that a free ticket and visa to Dubai would be arranged for him, provided he carries some foreign currency to Dubai and hands over the same to Hafeez (brother of Lateef) there, that he agreed to carry the foreign currency to Dubai in order to get a job in Dubai as promised by Lateef, that on i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mohd. Aziz. The adjudicating authority after following due process of law, imposed penalty of ₹ 6.00 lakhs each under section 114 of Customs Act, 1962 on both appellants. 4. Ld. Counsel appearing for both the appellants submits that- (i) While adjudicating the case, the Ld. Commissoner has ignored the statements made by appellants and also ignored the reply for further submissions and that on cross examination of Sri Mohd Azz and Shri Suresh Kumar Jain, Hyderabad, it has transpired that appellants had no role to play. (ii) In a statement made before Customs Officer, the appellant Sri Mohd Abdul Qayyum has clearly stated that he does not know who is Mohd. Aziz and is not able to explain the statement given by him and during the cross examination of Shri Mohd. Aziz held before Ld. Commissioner, it transpired that Mohd. Aziz did not meet appellant Mohd. Abdl Qayyum and he simply signed on the documents and photographs produced by the authorities, cross examination of Shri Suresh Kumar Jain also indicates that Shri Jain has identified the photograph of appellant Mohd. Abdul Qayyum as Mr. Mateen and did not recognize Mr. Qayyum who was sitting beside Commissioner du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ether the adjudicating authority was correct in imposing penalties under section 114 of Customs Act, 1962 or otherwise. 7. The adjudicating authority has relied upon the statements recorded of Sri Mohd. Aziz from whom the foreign exchange was recovered when he was intercepted at the Airport and admitted that the said amount given to him by Shri Lateef and Shri Qayyum. From the entire investigation which took place, I find that statements from Shri Mohd. Abdul Qayyum and Mohd. Ali Khan Siddique are recorded, they had straightaway denied having known Shri Mohd. Aziz. Secondly, I find that during cross examination conducted of Shri Mohd. Aziz, he flatly denied having known Shri Qayyum and also that of Shri Suresh Kumar Jain which indicated that there is a confusion as to what role Shi Mohd. Abdul Qayyum has played in the entire case. 8. I find that Ld. Departmental representative is relying on the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority from para 19 onwards upto para 22 in the impugned order for holding penalties imposed on these two appellants. I also find that the entire findings of the adjudicating authority is based only on various statements recorded of Traff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct or mission would render such goods liable to confiscation under section 111 or abets the doing or omission of such an act. In the entire case, there is nothing indicative that these appellants had abetted the doing or omission of an Act which would render the goods liable for confiscation under section 113. It is also seen from the records that there is no concrete evidence against appellants as to come to the conclusion that they had in fact provided foreign exchange which was sought to be illegally exported and the entire case is built upon the statement of Shri Mohd. Aziz who is co-accused. In my view, the statement of co-accused cannot be solely relied upon unless and until corroborated further by any material facts. This is the ratio of the judgment in the case of Abdul Kadar Gulam Mohd. Mulla Vs. CC, Ahmedabad (supra). The said judgment is reproduced: The challenge in the present appeal is to personal penalty of ₹ 1 lakh imposed upon the appellant in terms of provisions of Section 114 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962. As per the facts on record, one Shri S.H. Ahuja was intercepted by the DRI Officers on 16.05.1996 and three airmail covers were recovered from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
