1989 (10) TMI 168 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity and admissibility of the statements made by U.K. Agarwal and M.K. Agarwal.
2. Specificity and clarity of the show cause notice.
3. Jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs, New Delhi.
4. Sufficiency of evidence against the appellants, particularly Vinod Bansal.
5. Penalty imposition under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Admissibility of Statements:
The appellants argued that the statements of U.K. Agarwal and M.K. Agarwal were retracted and should not be considered substantive evidence. They contended that these statements were taken under duress and coercion. However, the judgment referenced the Kerala High Court's decision in the case of *Kolatra Abbas Haji v. Govt. of India* [1984 (15) E.L.T. 129], which held that retracted statements could still be considered if there was no evidence of threat or coercion. The Tribunal found that the statements were corroborated by other evidence such as documents, telephone diaries, and witness statements, making them admissible and reliable.

2. Specificity and Clarity of the Show Cause Notice:
The appellants claimed that the show cause notice was vague and did not specify the acts and omissions clearly. The Tribunal found that the notice, while it could have been better worded, was sufficiently clear in its allegations when read in conjunction with the detailed facts and findings. The notice was deemed adequate for the appellants to understand the charges against them.

3. Jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs, New Delhi:
One of the appellants, O.P. Jalan, argued that the Collector of Customs, New Delhi, did not have jurisdiction over him as the alleged delivery of gold took place in Bombay. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the seizure of gold and the apprehension of the persons involved occurred in Delhi, which gave the Collector of Customs, New Delhi, jurisdiction over the matter.

4. Sufficiency of Evidence Against the Appellants:
The Tribunal found sufficient evidence against Raj Kishore Gupta, Raghunandan Jalan, and O.P. Jalan, including corroborative documents, witness statements, and circumstantial evidence. However, in the case of Vinod Bansal, the Tribunal found that the evidence was insufficient. The primary evidence against Bansal was his acquaintance with the main accused and the presence of their names in his diary, which was not enough to establish his involvement in the smuggling activities. As a result, the penalty imposed on Vinod Bansal was set aside.

5. Penalty Imposition:
The penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act and Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act were upheld for Raj Kishore Gupta, Raghunandan Jalan, and O.P. Jalan. The Tribunal found the penalties justified based on the evidence and the findings of the Collector. However, the penalty on Vinod Bansal was overturned due to insufficient evidence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed on Raj Kishore Gupta, Raghunandan Jalan, and O.P. Jalan, rejecting their appeals. The appeal of Vinod Bansal was accepted, and the penalty imposed on him was set aside due to a lack of sufficient evidence. The judgment emphasized the admissibility of retracted statements when corroborated by other evidence and clarified the jurisdictional authority of the Collector of Customs, New Delhi.