TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t watches which he had failed to declare and it was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act. A statement was recorded from him. In pursuance thereof the applicant Shri Panna Lal as also one Shri Lalji Kapoor were traced and statements were recorded from them also. On the basis of the said statements and further materials gathered a show cause notice dated 10-3-1978 was issued by the Additional Collector of Customs, Delhi Airport. Replies were sent by these parties and adjudication was held by the Additional Collector in pursuance of which he passed an order dated 19-9-1978 where under he inter alia imposed penalties of Rs. 50,000/- each on Shri Pannalal and Shri Lalji Kapoor under Section 112 of the Customs Act. On appeal preferred by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to questions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 18, 19 and 20 only of the various questions mentioned in the petition and did not refer to the other questions. We shall now therefore discuss the submissions of both sides with reference to the said questions. 5. Shri Harbans Singh first referred to the question as to the contraband goods that were the subject matter of adjudication and were dealt with under the order of the Collector and the Board. He had contended during the hearing of the appeal that in paragraph 6 of the show cause notice it was only the goods seized from Shri Marchetty that had been referred to as liable for confiscation under Section 111(d), (1) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 as also the other goods in which the seized goods ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds as if the finding according to the Board is under Section 112(a) against the applicant and not under Section 112(b). He submits that in the absence of any proceedings in the nature of cross objections the finding of the Board under Section 112(a) was improper and the confirmation thereof by this Tribunal would give rise to a question of law. 7. No doubt in the order of the Board the finding is there appears to be reasonably conclusive case against the appellants of being concerned with the unauthorised importation with a view to carry on further transactions . This would to an extent support Shri Harbans Singh s comment that the Board appear to be recording a finding under Section 112(a) and not 112(b). But it appears that the Board h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applicant was concerned in the importation of the seized good?" The discussion in paragraph 12 of the Tribunal s order related to the finding of the lower authorities that the appellants had facilitated the importation of the goods seized. The Tribunal had held that taking into consideration the various pieces of evidence as mentioned in the said paragraph 12 the conclusion regarding the complicity of the applicant by way of facilitating the importation of the seized goods is established though there was no direct evidence to their overt participation in the actual importation. Therefore this is not a case where a conclusion on a question of fact had been drawn without any evidence or in a perverse manner. Hence the conclusion having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecorded on 10-12-1977 or 11-12-1977. This conclusion is again a question of fact and would not give rise to a question of law since the said conclusion was based on a letter written by the applicant himself in specific terms. Therefore questions 1 and 2 are also not questions of law to be referred to the Hon ble High Court. 11. Shri Harbans Singh then referred to the reply to the show cause notice and contended that the same would amount to retraction and the conclusion of the Tribunal that there had been no retraction at all was therefore improper and the said conclusion would give rise to the question of law as mentioned in question No. 3 in the petition. No argument as to the retraction under the reply to the show cause notice had bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the petitioner would not suffice to make out a case against him and that there are circumstances to show that the alleged statements could not have been voluntarily made. But this would again raise a question of fact only as to the sufficiency of the circumstances to make out the unvoluntary nature of the statement recorded. There is no question of law involved on this matter also. 14. As earlier mentioned though the application refers to 21 questions, Shri Harbans Singh confined his submissions to the questions mentioned above only and did not refer to the other questions during his arguments. Since we have already held that the questions with reference to which Shri Harbans Singh made submissions are not questions of law to be refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
