TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground that he was the owner of the smuggled goods. The penalty imposed on the present appellant was Rs. 1 lakh. Hence this Appeal. 2. Allegation against the appellant is that the said quantity of cardamom seized from a truck at 11.30 A.M. on 27-10-1997 near Lucknow on specific information received by the DRI Officers, was to be delivered to the appellant, a dealer in dry fruits in Delhi. The Department relies on the statements given by the driver of the truck, Shri Shrikant Tiwari and Shri Balbir Singh, another driver (and co-noticee in the case) to the effect that the impugned goods had been brought unauthorisedly from Nepal and the same was to be delivered to the appellant in Delhi. The appellant on the other hand maintains that he had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. Explaining the facts of the case, ld. Consultant submitted that the Customs Officers had visited the appellant s shop at Delhi and conducted search of the premises pursuant to the seizure of a certain quantity of cardamom near Lucknow on 27-10-1997 on the belief that they were smuggled from Nepal and on the assumption that the goods were meant to be delivered to the appellant. During the follow up investigation, nothing incriminating had been found in the appellant s shop. Further, during the interrogation of the appellant at the time of visit to the shop by Officers, Appellant had denied having any knowledge of Rajesh Kumar of Motihari in Bihar who was mentioned as the person responsible for the import of the said goods from Nepal as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erintendent of Customs v. Bhanabhai Khalpabhai Patel [1995 (75) E.L.T. 508 (S.C.)] wherein it was held that statement of co-accused cannot be taken without corroborative piece of evidence and any charge based only on such statement cannot be the basis for imposing penalty. He also relied on the Tribunal decision in Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), W. Bengal, Calcutta v. Shri Ranjit Ghosh Alias Rana Ghosh reported in 1998 (104) E.L.T. 349 (T) = 1998 (24) RLT 156 in which it was held that penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not imposable on the basis of hearsay evidence contained in the uncorroborated statement of a co-accused. Reliance was also placed on the following case law in support of the said contention. (a) Ravi G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Shri Pradeep Kumar, the present appellant nor Shri Rajender Singh (who had been mentioned as joint owner of the smuggled goods in the statement given by Shri Balbir Singh and Shri Shrikant Tiwari, drivers of the trucks) had denied that the seized goods were smuggled goods. The drivers had also in their statements admitted that the goods were to be delivered to Shri Pradeep Kumar at Delhi. The goods in question therefore were liable to confiscation and the appellant has been rightly imposed penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. He therefore pleaded for the rejection of the Appeal. 7. From a perusal of the record and on consideration of the submissions made before me it appears that the entire basis for imposing penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
