Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2005 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (7) TMI 250 - AT - CustomsSmuggling of the silver - confiscation - Penalty - Adjudication - No opportunity for cross-examination to the witnesses - Violation of principles of natural justice - Proof regarding letting out of the premises - HELD THAT:- As noted, all the noticees including the appellants were informed about all the material which was sought to be relied on against them along with the relevant documents and statements as stated in the detailed show cause notices issued to them, and they sent their replies to the show cause notices. Some of the appellants were represented by consultants. The appellants remained absent on various dates resulting delay in the proceedings. Statements of the two drivers of the vehicles from which contraband silver was recovered, the employee of the appellant Ashish Kumar Chaurasia and the statements of the persons who were travelling in the vehicles for taking the contraband silver to Delhi as also the statements of Ram Avatar Singhal, and the statements of independent persons before whom seizures were made clearly establish that all the appellants were persons concerned with prohibited silver and were liable to imposition of penalty u/s 112 of the said Act. In such a situation insistence for cross-examining one of them can be purely strategic with a view to raise a contention of violation of principles of natural justice. If cross-examination is to be allowed as a matter of right then in all cases of conspiracy and joint dealings between the co-noticees in the commission of the offences in connection with the contraband goods, they can bring about a situation of failure of natural justice by a joint strategic effort such co-noticees by each one refusing to be cross-examined by resorting to Article 20(3) of the Constitution and simultaneously claiming cross-examination of the other co-noticees. We, therefore, hold that the appellants, including the appellant Ashish Kumar Chaurasia were not entitled to claim cross-examination as a matter of right. The appellant Ashish Kumar Chaurasia had, in fact, cross-examined two official witnesses and at the end, he had only sought for time for further hearing. The cross-examination made by the appellant, Ashish Kumar Chaurasia of two officers, A.K. Chaturvedi and Simon has been set out in the impugned order and it is recorded that, "various dates of personal hearing was given one after the other but neither Ashish Kumar Chaurasia nor his advocate turned up". It is clear from the record that the appellants had been given adequate opportunity of being heard in the matter pursuant to the show cause notice issued under Section 124 of the said Act, and there has not been any violation of the principles of natural justice. It is clear to us from the statements of Ram Avatar Singhal, Ram Kishore Mishra, Ram Bilas Mandal and Ram Kumar Kashyap that the appellant Ashish Kumar Chaurasia, alias Pappu doodhwala was involved in concealing the silver ingots of foreign origin in his dairy premises and he used to give such ingots to Ram Avatar Singhal for getting them melted and sold for which he used to pay the agreed amount to Ram Avatar Singhal. The appellant Ram Avatar Singhal used to send the converted contraband silver to Delhi in the vehicles in which concealed cavities were made for the safe transport of the contraband goods. The appellant Ram Avatar Singhal used to depute Jagdish Shanker Trivedi, alias 'Jijaji' who was a lawyer along with his driver for transporting the contraband silver to Delhi for its disposal. He also used to send his friend Ram Kishore Mishra for transporting the silver to Delhi. Both the drivers were engaged for trips to Delhi for the said purpose. Ram Avatar Singhal was melting the ingots in his refinery, from where also, 14 ingots and one lump of silver were recovered on 18-12-1992 itself when both the vehicles in which the contraband silver was being carried were intercepted at Kanpur and at Ghaziabad near Delhi. Thus, we are fully satisfied that the learned Commissioner of Central Excise was right in confiscating the seized goods and imposing the penalties on the appellants under the impugned order. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellants do not warrant any interference with the impugned order. All the appeals are, therefore, dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
|