9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing case laws:- (i) Gian Chand and Others v. State of Punjab -1983 (13) E.L.T. 1365 (S.C.). (ii) Asst. Collector v. Daljit Singh and Others -1992 (58) E.L.T. 54 (P&H) (iii) E. Eswara Reddy & Another v. CC, Hyderabad-II - 2006 (196) E.L.T. 410 (Tri.-Bang.) = 2006 (75) RLT 894 (Tri.-Bang) 3. He further argues that though the Appellant had given a statement to Customs on the date of his apprehension, he has subsequently retracted the statement in reply to the show cause notice and hence the original statement given by the Appellant has no evidentiary value and the same should be discarded. 4. He further states that the Appellant had produced a cash memo before the Magistrate which has been verified by Customs, but the same has not bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and nowhere he stated that he had legally acquired the same. The appellant did not also retract his statement till submitting his reply to the show cause notice on 20-3-2001 i.e. after nearly 7 (seven) months from the date of his original statement. He further states that the acquittal by the Magistrate was on technical grounds and therefore the Customs is not precluded from deciding the matter by way of departmental adjudication. 8. Shri A.K. Sharma, learned Departmental Representative (JDR) also states that the subsequent claim made by the Appellant in the reply to the show cause notice is totally at variance with his initial statement and obviously the same is tutored and cannot be accepted. 9. After hearing both the sides and perusa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en done by the Authorities below. I am also of the view that the statement which has been given by the Appellant under Section 108 of the Act is admissible as a piece of vital evidence since there is no allegation of it having been obtained illegally and also in view of the fact that the same has not been retracted till reply to the show cause notice submitted after 7 (seven) months from the date of the statement. 11. If the Appellant was carrying gold obtained legally, he would have produced the necessary documentary evidence to the Authorities and he would not have carried the same in a surreptitious manner hiding the same taped to his feet inside his shoes. The submission by the learned Counsel that the Appellant had given a receipt in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ownership of the same. He has all along been taking the stand that he was only a carrier of the gold. Moreover, the contention of the learned Advocate that import of gold is only restricted under the Import Policy and hence should be allowed redemption on payment of fine instead of absolute confiscation is without any legal basis. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheikh Md. Omer v. CC, Calcutta - 1983 13) E.L.T. 1439 (S.C.) "any prohibition" in Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 means every and all types of prohibition, whether complete or partial, it includes restriction which is one type of prohibition. Since gold is not allowed import without restriction and the import of the same is subject to various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
