TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... address belonged to Shri Hitesh Kumar Sharma who, in his statement dated 4-6-1996, stated that he was the owner of the House No. 29, Sector 4, Gurgaon; that he had no connection with the said Association; that one Shri Gopal Krishna Sharma used to stay in his house and he had heard about Association from Sharma. Shri Sharma, in his statement dated 4-6-1996 , stated that the consignment was sent by Shri Hardayal Singh on behalf of the International Social Welfare Society, U.S.A. Inquiries also revealed that the Association was registered with the Registrar of Society, Delhi and the registered address of the Association was 12/3, Saket Block, Mandawali, Fazalpur, Delhi and that Shri Gopal Krishna Sharma was neither an office bearer nor a member of the Association. The Commissioner of Customs, under the impugned order, confiscated the goods absolutely under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, holding that Shri Sharma had no locus standi in the importation of the goods as he was not registered as an authorised representative of the real charitable institution whose address is different, whose authentic memorandum of association is different in which the name of said Sharma is not found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts would lead to a fraud on the Court. Regarding the discrepancy in the copy of the Memorandum of Association given by Shri Sharma and the certified copy obtained from Registrar of Societies, he submitted that copy given by Shri Sharma was only a draft copy; that in any case discrepancies do not mean that the Society was not registered; that the very fact that Department obtained certified copies of Memorandum Article of Association leads to the fact that the Society is a bona fide Society. He further submitted that contents of a bill of lading is presumed to be correct under the Bill of Lading Act and placed reliance on the decision in the case of Asiatic Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Jethalal Dharamsin Co., AIR 1959 (Calcutta) 479. He further mentioned that even if Shri Sharma used the name of the Society, goods cannot be confiscated. Relying upon the decision in the case of Jaswinder Singh v. Collector of Customs, 1996 (83) E.L.T. 175 (T), he submitted that statement of co-noticee or co-accused without any independent corroboration cannot form the basis of formation of a charge of involvement in smuggling activities. 4. Countering the arguments, Shri D.K. Nayyar, learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts in issue. The Supreme Court further held that the broad effect of the application of the basic principle underlying Section 106 of the Evidence Act to cases under Section 167(8) of the Act is that Department would be deemed to have discharged its burden, if it adduces so much evidence, circumstantial or direct, as is sufficient to raise a presumption in its favour with regard to the existence of the fact sought to be proved. 5. The learned D.R. finally submitted that the Central Government, under Notification No. 19/90-Cus., dated 26-4-1990 conferred the powers of Assistant Collector of Customs on Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. It is well settled law that the powers conferred by the Central Government would prevail. He relied upon the decision in the case of Deepak Woollen Pvt. Ltd., 1996 (82) E.L.T. 307 (T) wherein it was held that the seizure of the goods as well as issue of the show-cause notice by the DRI could not be said to be without jurisdiction. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We observe that after evaluating the evidence, the commissioner came to the conclusion that both Shri Gopal Krishna Sharma and the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wers exercised is available even though under a different provision, is by itself not sufficient to invalidate that power. 9. The Appellants have submitted that officers of DRI were not competent to issue the show cause notice and reliance was placed on the decision in Commissioner of Customs v. Poona Roller, 1997 (89) E.L.T. 604 (T). The Commissioner, in the impugned order has observed that the Poona Rollers case is not applicable to the facts of the present case as demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act was involved in that case whereas the present case deals with unauthorised import of goods. Section 4 of the Customs Act empowers the Central Government to appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be officers of Customs. In exercise of this power, the Central Government, under Notification No. 19/90 (N.T.) Cus, dated 26-4-1990, appointed officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence as officers of customs. Assistant Director, DRI, Ahmedabad has been appointed as Assistant Commissioner of Customs for the State of Gujarat. Neither the provisions of Section 4 nor the Notification provide that such officers who are appointed as Customs Officers will not exercise the power ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
