TMI Blog1987 (11) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are directed against the order of the Collector of Customs, Cochin, dated 7-4-1987 imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- each on appellants Shri Haresh Chimanlal Vora and Jayant K. Sanghanee and Rs. 2.5,000/- on the other appellant Shri Rajan Menon, under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Act for short. 4. On 13-1-1986, on the basis of prior information the Customs authorities examined the packages covered by Bill of Entry No. 124, dated 9-1-1986 filed by Custom House Agent M/s. G.H. Bhai Co. Appellant Rajan Menon is the clearing clerk of the said Custom House Agent. The packages on examination were found to contain 3,92,000 Nos. of electronic watch battery button cells and 448 Nos. of Citizen Quartz Wrist Watches of foreign origin concealed in the two consignments of old and damaged Video game machines imported. Since the goods were not claimed by any person and since the goods were of foreign origin, the authorities effected seizure of the same under a mahazar as per law. The total value of the goods was found to be Rs. 40,35,000 c.i.f. and Rs. 89,50,000/- market value. The examination of appellant Rajan Menon revealed that the goods in question had been imported b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tage. Finally, the learned Counsel pleaded for reduction. 6. Shri Hassan, the learned Counsel for the appellant Jayant Sanghanee, submitted that the inculpatory statement recorded from him on 13-1-1986 and 14-1-1986 by the authorities is neither voluntary nor ture and would not merit acceptance. It was urged that the statement was brought out under threat and coercion and was retracted. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Show Cause Notice against his client proceeded on the basis that he illicitly imported the goods in question whereas penalty has been imposed on him under the impugned order as an abettor. This inconsistency even in regard to the very charge and assessment of evidence and final conclusion, it was urged, would vitiate the impugned order. The learned Counsel submitted that his client merely assisted appellant Haresh Chimanlal Vora in respect of the import of two Video game machines imported in the present case without knowing that they contained contraband goods. The learned Counsel further urged that the findings of the adjudicating authority in para 26 of the order that his client pleaded guilty through his counsel and prayed for lenient sentence is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me the charges levelled against the appellants. The plea of the learned Counsel for appellant Haresh Chimanlal Vora that a show cause notice was not served and therefore the impugned order is not sustainable cannot be accepted. We find that the impugned order dated 7-4-1987 has been sent to an address in Bombay where admittedly it has been received on behalf of appellant Haresh Chimanlal Vora and the show cause notice dated May, 1986 was sent to the same address and, therefore, it is for the appellant to explain as to how the notice can be said to have not been sent to the proper address. To a specific query in this regard the learned Counsel drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of his stay petition. On going through the affidavit, we find that no details at all have been given as to where exactly the appellant was living at the time when the Show Cause Notice was issued and except a bare averment that he settled down in Surat in March, 1986, nothing is stated as to how and on whose instructions the impugned order addressed to his earlier Bombay address was received by his brother or brother s wife. Apart from it in terms of Section 27 of the Genera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Haresh Chimanlal Vora does not find a place in the remand report relating to appellant Jayant Sanghanee and one Kiran Sanghanee. When the statement of Jayant Sanghanee dated 13-1-1986 and 14-1-1986 is not disputed the fact of non-mention of the role played by appellant Haresh Chimanlal Vora in the subsequent remand report and that too relating not to appellant Haresh Chimanlal Vora but other people is of no connection or relevance at all and at any rate would not help appellant Haresh Chimanlal Vora in any way. 10. So far as appellant Jayant Sanghanee is concerned, we find that during adjudication he pleaded guilty to the charge through his Counsel and the wordings of the adjudicating authority in para 26 of the impugned order are unambiguous and clear to the effect that appellant Jayant Sanghanee pleaded or a lenient view being taken pleading that he was not directly involved in the importation but was only assisting appellant Haresh Chimanlal Vora in the importation of the contraband goods in question. It was urged before us that this plea by the learned Counsel for appellant Jayant Sanghanee during adjudication is not factually correct and except an oral assertion to this ef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods in question. 12. Shri Dharmapal, the learned Consultant for appellant Rajan Menon submitted that the inculpatory statement from his client dated 13-1-1986 is not voluntary and true and was brought out under threat and coercion. We have gone through the statement and we are convinced that the same is voluntary and true. While the plea has been taken that the statement was brought out under threat and coercion, we find that before the Judicial Magistrate at the time of remand on 16-1-1986 there is no whisper or allegation of threat or coercion in regard to the statement and this fact has been correctly dealt with in para 28 of the impugned order by the adjudicating authority. We find that appellant Rajan Menon has been clearly implicated in the statement of appellant Jayant Sanghanee and Kiran Sanghanee. We also find that certain incriminating documents relating to the import of similar contraband goods in the past were recovered from the possession of appellant Rajan Menon and this aspect has been referred to in para 7 of the impugned order. This circumstance can certainly be taken as a relevant piece of evidence while appreciating the inculpatory statement of appellant Raja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
