9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e seen from paragraph 4 of his findings in the impugned order where he has merely referred to a standing order dated 1.8.1963 under which all officers except clerks of the Preventive Department have been declared as proper officers for the purpose of Section 110 relating to seizure of goods. He states that the DRI officers are not officers of the Preventive Department and hence the said standing order has no application in respect of DRI officers. He further states that only recently the DRI officers have been given powers under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, by issue of Notification No. 40/2012-Customs (NT) dated 2.5.2012 and hence there was no power vested with the DRI officers to effect the impugned seizure dated 4.8.1995. 2. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the above, it is amply clear that the IO / SIO who have effected the impugned seizures were empowered to exercise powers under Section 110 of the Customs Act by the Director of Revenue Intelligence who in turn was appointed by Central Government under Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962 to be the Collector of Customs with all India jurisdiction. These notifications cited above were very much in force on the date of seizure of the impugned goods. The fact that another notification has been issued by the CBEC on 2.5.2012 does not any way affect the powers conferred on the DRI officials earlier by appropriate notifications issued in the Gazette of India by the Central Government and the Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. As such, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avel Company M/s. Wins Tours & Travels through whom tickets were booked by Shri Jamal for travel of the accused passenger to Singapore, as recorded by the DRI on different dates during investigation of the case and from record of ticket and cash register maintained by the said Travel Company produced to DRI during recording of said statements. The relevant portions of these statements highlighting the role of Shri Jamal in smuggling of electronic goods, which have also been discussed in the impugned de novo Order in Original No. 26/2004 dated 28.05.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Airport, Chennai. (ii) In this case Shri Ambalam Khaja, a passenger coming from Singapore was arrested by DRI on 18.09.2000 for ill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tunities i.e. on being produced before the Magistrate and hence not acceptable. (iv) In his statement dated 21.09.2000 Shri Raguram, Proprietor of M/s. Wins Tours & Travels has admitted that tickets for the travel of Shri Ambalam Khaja were booked on behalf of Shri Jamal and an amount of Rs. 25000/- was received by him on behalf of Shri Jamal for said tickets and Rs. 3000/- was yet to be received. In his statement dated 28.09.2000 he has further mentioned including booking of 4 tickets for Shri Ambalam Khaja, he has booked about 30 tickets in the name of Shri Jamal. Employees of M/s. Wins Tours & Travels Shri K. Sakthivel and Shri N. Natarajan in their statements dated 28.09.2000 have also confirmed booking of tickets fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Sukhawani Vs. Union of India -1996 (83) 258 (S.C.) the statement of co-accused is admissible as sufficient evidence. As per Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in the case of Surjeet Singh Chhabra Vs. Union of India - 1997 (89) ELT 646 (S.C.). The confessional statement made before Customs officer though retracted within six days is an admission and binding since Customs Officers are not Police Officers. The same view has been taken in the case of K.I. Pavunny Vs. CCE - 1997 (90) ELT 241 (S.C.), that the confessional statement before Customs Officers is admissible and binding as evidence. Besides, in this case no evidence has been adduced that the statements were obtained under duress, coercion etc. The learned SDR further states that in view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . As regards the second appellant, Mr. Khaja, considering the fact that he was a carrier engaged on a small fee, and taking into consideration the mitigating factors such as he has no regular source of income, has a big family and no assets worth mentioning as pleaded by the learned Advocate, I am of the view that equal penalty of Rs. One lakh on him is not justified. Hence, I reduce the penalty on Mr. Ambalam Khaja from Rs. One lakh to Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only). 9. As regards the redemption fine, I find that the adjudicating Commissioner has imposed redemption fine of about 50% of the value of the impugned goods. Considering the fact that the present contraband import was not a first time import but on earlier occasi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
