9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal Airport, Mumbai on the ground that the goods intercepted at the time of arrival of passengers did not have anything to do with him. Briefly stated, as narrated by Learned Counsel for appellant, one Shri Mohamed Sohail Abdul Rehman, arriving from Hong Kong by Air India flight no. AI-311 on the night of 8th March 2007, had connived with two passengers, Mr. Jitendra Sharma and Mr. Neeraj Jain, travelling on the domestic leg from Delhi to Mumbai to transpose baggage labels and thus evade detection of 'mobile memory cards and adaptors' upon landing at Mumbai. Consequent upon interception and on the basis of investigation, proceedings were initiated against the passengers and also against the appellant. 2. It is the submission of Learned Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er issued by the travel agent highlighting his role in providing wherewithal to the passengers. 6. Having considered the rival submissions, we take note that the appellant was neither a passenger nor was he present at the time of interception of the 'memory cards and adaptors'. He, however, operates a business in trading of similar items and had some business relationship with one of the domestic passenger. We also take note that, admittedly, the statement of Jitendra Sharma was entirely retracted and that a plausible explanation to exact revenge by implicating the appellant has also been suggested. 7. Even if the statements are exculpatory and the retracted statement is discounted, the corroborative evidence in the form of the letter dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvestigation, the travel agent was issued with a letter for production of documents in exercise of powers under section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 by a gazetted officer. Consequently, the covering letter does not fail the test of reliability for the purposes of section 108 of Customs Act, 1962. In the light of retracted statements, this corroborates the involvement of appellant in facilitating the travels as ascertainable from the invoices which are not controverted. The scope of material that could build up evidence to link an individual with an alleged offence has been appreciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naresh J Sukhawani v. Union of India [1996 (83) ELT 258 (SC)] while holding that '3. The Joint Secretary to the Government, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, be used as substantive evidence connecting the petitioner with the contravention by exporting foreign currency out of India. Therefore we do not think that there is any illegality in the order of confiscation of foreign currency and imposition of penalty. There is no ground warranting reduction of fine.' 9. We, therefore, do not find any flaw in the finding of the original authority that a conclusion can be derived from the contents of a statement, retracted though, in conjunction with material evidence of purchase of the tickets that were utilized by others whose complicity in the smuggling has not been controverted. The implicating of the appellant as the main stem of this operation would appear to us to have been established on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
