9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. It is natural that being a close relative i.e., brother-in-law, the appellant has gone to receive Mr. Y.M. Naseer Hussain. The police authorities have intercepted the vehicle in which appellant and others were travelling and handed over the seized goods to the customs authorities. The Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Union of India Vs Kasambhai Umerbhai Kureshi [ 1979 (2) TMI 216 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that goods handed over to the customs authority by the police after seizing from the accused are not goods seized within the meaning of Section 123 of the Customs Act. Therefore, Section 123 of the Customs Act is not applicable against the appellant in the present case. In this case, it is important to note that there is no a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame and perused the documents with the help of Learned AR. 2. The brief facts of the case are that based on information received by Customs officials at Vijayawada that Police Authorities have intercepted a vehicle bearing No. AP04AV1553 carrying a passenger by name Mr. Y.M. Naseer Hussain, from whose possession foreign marked Gold Biscuits (cut to size), 4 gold rings and the above said vehicle were seized and all their statements were recorded under Panchanama dt.29.06.2017. On being asked by the police during the said proceedings, it was alleged that Mr. Y.M. Naseer Hussain expressed his inability to produce any valid/proper duty paid documents. Hence they have detained Mr. Y.M. Naseer Hussain, Mr. B. Ranjit Kumar, Mr. Pagidipalli Narasi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved were recorded. A SCN dt.01.11.2017 was issued to the above mentioned persons along with Smt. B. Naga Lakshumma, who is the owner of the vehicle seized, as to why gold and vehicle seized cannot be confiscated as well as penalties cannot be imposed on them. After adjudication, the Original Adjudicating Authority ordered for confiscation of said gold and imposed penalties on Mr. Y.M. Naseer Hussain and the present appellant - Mr. P. Narasimhulu and dropped the proceedings against the remaining persons. 4. Aggrieved, the present appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who, vide the impugned order dt.31.05.2019, upheld the Order of the Adjudicating Authority thereby confirming the demand. Hence the appellant filed an ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed against other co-accused. Such confession can be used only in support of other evidence and cannot be made the foundation of a conviction." In this case, it is important to note that there is no any confessional statement against the appellant by co-accused Mr. Y.M. Naseer Hussain. Co-accused Mr. Y.M. Naseer Hussain stated that appellant Mr. P. Narasimhulu came to pickup and was not aware that he was carrying the FMG in his luggage. 9. In the case of Obispo Reyes Vs State [2000 (125) ELT 393 (Cal)], the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta held that "presumption cannot be drawn in the absence of proof of knowledge or conscious possession." In the case of Superintendent of Central Excise, Nipani Vs K. Arumugam Pillai [2000 (124) ELT 5 (Mys)], ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
