TMI Blog1984 (1) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m an order passed by the Additional Collector, appeal lies to the Collector (Appeals) and with the bona fide belief the appellant has filed the appeal before the Collector (Appeals) on the 28th day of June, 1983 i.e. within 3 months from the date of communication of the order which is 14th April, 1983. He has submitted that the appellant had formed the belief in filing the appeal before the Collector (Appeals) owing to a two members decision of the Bench which was subsequently reversed by a special Bench of the Tribunal that the appeal lies from the order of the Additional Collector to the Tribunal. The appellant had received back the papers from the office of the Collector (Appeals) vide a covering letter dated the 26th August, 1983 and the appellant has filed the appeal before the Tribunal on the next day i.e., the 17th day of August, 1983. He has pleaded that it was bona fide belief and the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in late filing of the appeal and as such the same should be condoned. 3. After taking into consideration the circumstances and the facts that the appeal was filed in a wrong Court I hold that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rn by the appellant. The appellant has alleged that he has verbally declared the foreign currency. After going through the facts circumstances of the case the Additional Collector had passed an order and confiscated the seized foreign currency under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Reserve Bank of India s Notification dated 1st January, 1974 issued under Section 13 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The other seized goods viz., 1 pc. Gents Wrist watch, 1 pc. ladies wrist watch, 2 pcs. watch pens, 1 pc. calculator, were also confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, an option was given to the appellant to redeem the seized foreign currency on payment of a fine of ₹ 4,000 with the condition that if the above option of redeeming the foreign currency is exercised, the foreign currency on release should be handed over to an authorised foreign exchange dealer for encashment into Indian currency. An option was also given to redeem the other goods on payment of a fine of ₹ 500 and payment of Customs duty at the applicable baggage rates. A personal penalty of ₹ 300 was also imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g with the Memorandum of Appeal. The same is reproduced as under :- Shri S.V. Thawrani Advocate, accompanied by his client appeared for personal hearing today (5-6-1982) at 3.30 P.M., mainly in connection with cross-examination of the officers of Customs concerned with this case. In response to the request sent to the officers S/Shri M.K. Sil, E.K. Bhowmick, N.C. Sarkar, N. Sengupta and R.N. Kacharia presented themselves at the appointed time for cross-examination by the advocate. When the cross-examination was about to start of Shri Kacharia, the Baggage Officer in this case the Advocate objected to the presence of other officers of Customs viz. the witnesses and move a written application dated 5-6-1982 in this behalf. The Advocate pleaded that in the cross-examination procedure, he can always demand that other witnesses should not be present and wanted a decision on this point before proceeding with the case further. Shri M.K. Sil, Supdt. of Customs present during the hearing made a request that he also should be given assistance of a departmental lawyer to present the case on behalf of the department and in particular to introduce their evidence before the defence counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s submitted that the appellant had verbally declared the foreign currency to the Customs officers. He has urged that in view of the legal position as per the .provisions of the various Acts and the various judgments cited by him the appellant s appeal should be accepted. 6. In reply, Shri A.K. Deb Roy, the S.D.R., who appeared on behalf of the Respondent, denied all the 4 points raised by the learned Counsel. He submitted that an opportunity for cross-examining the witnesses was duly granted to the appellant by the Revenue. He conceded that there is a letter of the Enforcement Directorate wherein the Enforcement Authorities had mentioned that no action is called for. He however stated that in the said letter dated 24-4-1982, it is also mentioned that the Customs may take its own action in the matter under the Customs Act provided that there is no incriminating documents to show otherwise. The S.D.R, therefore, stated that there is no bar for the Customs to proceed in the matter. He has also referred, to G.S.R. 91, dated 1-1-1974 and has drawn the attention to the provisos to the said notification. The said provisos reads as under : Provided that the permission contained in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 22-4-1982 and has stated that the counsel for the appellant has suppressed the last lines of the said letter which goes against him. He has also referred to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal No. 70 of 1976 - Ashutosh Ghose Anr. v. Union of India, where it has been held that denial of such cross-examination does not violate principles of natural justice provided the authorities have disclosed the materials relied upon for issue of show cause notice and subsequently allowed the parties to inspect the documents and take copies thereof. He has also referred to the Supreme Court in Kanugo Co. v. Collector wherein it was held that the denial of cross-examination does not constitute denial of natural justice. He has also referred to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Krishanlal Agarwal v. Collector of Land Customs in matter No. 67 of 1980 and has pleaded that the proceedings under the Customs Act are vaild (AIR 1967 Cal 80 pages 28, 29, 32). The learned S.D.R. went on to plea that as the appellant was carrying foreign currency beyond the limit of US $ 1000 he ought to have declared the same in the prescribed form and not verbally. There was no har ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
