Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2019 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 851 - HC - CustomsImposition of penalty u/s 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Confiscation of goods - gold biscuits for foreign origin cut into two pieces - Nokia mobile phone - reliability on statements - HELD THAT:- As far as the statement made by the respondent no.2 Sujeet Kumar under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is concerned, the same would certainly not be hit by bar of admissibility under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, but the evidentiary value of such statement would also depend on various other factors. The statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act and its retraction are both required to be corroborated and proved - The same cannot be treated as substantive piece of evidence in terms of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, as it is not given by the witness and not subjected to cross-examination. It is also not given on oath. The Tribunal has taken note of the statement of Sujeet Kumar and his retraction made from jail in its order. The Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the respondent no.1 herein had produced retail invoices of M/s Bhawana International in order to substantiate his claim that he had purchased two pieces of gold bars from Chandni Chowk, Delhi on 14.04.2014 and on his instructions his brother Chandreshwar Prasad Sah (Respondent no.3) had handed over the gold pieces to Sujeet Kumar (Respondent no.2) for carrying it to Patna to hand it over to Mahavir Prasad to make gold ornaments in exchange of the said gold. Under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 an appeal would be maintainable before the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Tribunal on or after the 1st day of July, 2003 (not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment) only if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. Appeal dismissed.
|