TMI Blog1989 (12) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Tribunal in terms of Section 131B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for being disposed of as if it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal. 2. On 7-1-1972 at about 4 PM on the basis of prior information the Asst. Collector of Customs, Kozhikode Division, along with the officers visited the godown at No. 22, M/s. Patel Volkart Ltd. at Kozhikode known as Bales Godown and recovered therefrom contraband goods of various types such as typewriters, grinders, bread roasters, shock absorbers etc. of foreign origin detailed in the impugned order and valued at Rs. 5,75,640/-, in 82 bundles. The authorities effected seizure of the same and instituted proceedings against various persons and in the present appeal I am concerned only with reference to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It was therefore submitted that accepting entire evidence on record in entirety, no evidence is brought home against the appellant and at any rate the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned SDR urged that in the second statement recorded from the appellant on 13-4-1972 he had stated that he knew about the storage of contraband goods in the godown in question and did not disclose it to the authorities for fear. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. The short question that arises in the present appeal is whether there is any legal evidence on record either direct or circumstantial to bring home the charge of abetment against the appellant in respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontraband was found from a godown, for whose hiring, Shri R.P. Hussain had taken the trouble of meeting the Branch Manager, M/s. Patel Volkart Ltd." The Board also in considering the evidence in the impugned order, has observed as under: The same applies to R.P. Hussain but it is evident that his role was not directly connected with the handling of the smuggled goods. He was only aware of the nature of the transactions and to that extent he was somewhat concerned in harbouring the smuggled goods. He has therefore been correctly found to be liable to penalty by the Collector but considering the somewhat limited role played by him, the amount of penalty is reduced from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 10,000/- . In the entire case records there is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the appellant with reference to his possible involvement as an abettor in the commission of offence. But it is well settled that suspicion however strong or grave it may be, cannot take place of proof and the proceedings being penal in nature, the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of doubt in the facts and circumstances of the case. As regards the confession in the second statement referred to and relied upon by the learned SDR, I only find mere knowledge on the part of the appellant about the storage of contraband goods by other persons, which he did not disclose to the authorities on grounds of fear. This mere awareness or knowledge on the part of the appellant with reference to the offence committed by others, would not ip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
