9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... witnesses are supporting each other regarding the incident of recovery and such statements are further corroborated by the Panchnamas prepared at the spot which bear the signatures of the petitioner as also the Panch Witnesses. The High Court exercising power under the writ jurisdiction cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. This exercise must be restricted to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. The jurisdiction which the High Court exercises in the writs is neither original nor appealable. It is administrative and supervisory in nature. In the present writ petition, petitioner is assailing the impugned order passed in revision on the basis of appreciation of evidence only. The High Court while exercising the power under the writ jurisdiction cannot normally substitute its own conclusion. There are no patent illegality or error apparent on the face of the record - there is no merit in the present writ petition - petition dismissed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA For the Petitioner Through: Mr. S. Sunil, Advocate. For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as Rs. 15,01,000/-. The recovered memory cards were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act. The pax Rajdeep Chawla, who had given the parcel to the petitioner, was followed discretely. After immigration clearance, he collected his check-in baggage and walked through the green channel of the customs clearance hall, he was then diverted for screening of his baggage through X-Ray machine. On screening, it was observed that the baggage was containing watches in commercial quantity. On examination of the check-in baggage and handbag, 60 watches and 13 fuel injection pumps were recovered vide Panchnama dated 27.01.2011. The petitioner as also Rajdeep Chawla were asked to produce the documents in support of the above goods but they were unable to do so and were therefore arrested on 28.01.2011. Statements were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. 3. Show Cause Notice dated 19.10.2011 was issued to the petitioner to explain as to why the impugned goods should not be seized and customs duty with interest and penalty should not be imposed upon him. Order-in-Original No. 79/2012 dated 09.11.2012, imposed penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs on the petitioner for the acts of omission and com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a specific information about the passenger Shri Rajdeep Chawla that he would be carrying the impugned goods on flight no. AI 315 on 26.01.2011. It was observed by Customs Officers that upon arrival, the pax handed over a Hong Kong duty free shop polythene bag to Shri Veerendra Singh who in turn entered the AFFRO shift in charge s office. Upon search of the Shift in-charge s room after following due process of law in the presence of both the wing incharge, AFRRO arrival office, Mr. Bagchi and Mrs Achana Andley, 01 bottle packing of Chivas Regal, 3 packets containing 7140 pieces of memory cards were recovered from the Hong Kong duty free bag and the proceedings of recovery was done under the panchanama drawn on the spot. Upon search of a laptop bag carried by Shri Veerendra Singh out of the said room, a brown taped packet comprising 2360 pieces of memory cards was recovered and the recovery of 2360 pieces of 2 GB memory cards was also recorded under the panchnama dated 26/27.1.2011 drawn on the spot. The goods collectively valued at Rs. 15,01,000/- were seized under Section 110 of the Act, ibid. 7. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records available in case file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellate authority has also erred in ignoring the fact mentioned in the panchnama dated 28.01.2011 drawn on the spot whereby the mutual identification proceedings of both the accused i.e. Shri Rajdeep Chawla and Shri Veerendra Singh were recorded. Both Shri Rajdeep Chawla and Shri Veerendra Singh in their statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 accepted that they were involved in illegal import of goods and acted as carriers and got petty amount in lieu of their services; that the respondent was carrying the goods on behalf of Shri Baljeet Singh ( Chacha ). Another material piece of evidence which establishes the connivance of Shri Veerendra Singh is the mobile phone communication between Shri Baljeet Singh with Shri Veerendra Singh and Shri Mukesh Wahi between 12.01.2011 and 26.01.2011 which has not been refuted at any stage by the respondent. Another material piece of evidence which clearly establishes the connivance of Shri Veerendra Singh is the mobile phone communication between Shri Baljeet Singh with Shri Veerendra Singh and Shri Mukesh Wahi between 12.01.2011 and 26.11.2011 which has not been refuted at any stage by the respondent. 9. Gover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Customs Jaipur (2000(117) E.LT. 515(Tri)}- wherein Hon'ble Tribunal held that Smuggling evidence-statement- retraction of confessional statement when statement made under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 never retracted before filing the replies to the Show Cause Notice retraction of the statement at later stage not to affect their evidence value. 10.6 In the case of Surjeet Singh Chabra Vs. UOI 1997 (84) ELT (646) SC . Hon'ble Supreme Court held that statement made before Customs Officer though retracted within six days, is an admission and binding since Customs Officers are not Police Officers. As such, the statement tendered before Customs is a valid evidence under law. 11. Government thus notes that plea of the applicant that there is enough corroboratory evidence to establish that Shri Veerendra Singh willingly colluded with Shri Rajdeep Chawla to facilitate the smuggling of impugned goods has force. The appellate authority has erred in overlooking above vital points in the recovery of the impugned goods which have been discussed in detail by the adjudicating authority in Order-in-Original. 12. In view of the above discussion and facts Government opi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se to examine and appreciate the evidence on record in the light of the settled principles of law and came to a categorical finding that the guilt of petitioner who is accused of colluding and abetting in the smuggling of impugned goods is established. The findings of the learned Joint Secretary assume legally correct approach in the light of the deposition of the witnesses recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, duly corroborated by panchnamas of recovery. 9. Moreover, the High Court exercising power under the writ jurisdiction cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. This exercise must be restricted to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. The jurisdiction which the High Court exercises in the writs is neither original nor appealable. It is administrative and supervisory in nature. In the present writ petition, petitioner is assailing the impugned order passed in revision on the basis of appreciation of evidence only. The High Court while exercising the power under the writ jurisdiction cannot normally substitute its own conclusion. 10. We find no patent illegality or err ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
