TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 906X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a friend whose even primary details like name, age, telephone number, residential address, place of work profession etc. and other basic information details like nature of business carried out, the accused appellant could provide. The plea of the appellant that statement of co-accused cannot be, the sole basis of imposition of penalty is the proposition that would vary with the facts and circumstances of the case. In fact the honourable Supreme Court in the case of NARESH J. SUKHAWANI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 1995 (11) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT] had held that the statement of co-accused when not retracted, was substantive piece of evidence. In the present case, as a matter of fact, the prompt and forthwith identification of the accused S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive of principles of natural justice, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of SURJEET SINGH CHHABRA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 1996 (10) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT] have upheld this this proposition. There are no reason to interfere with the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) which is upheld. The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. - Customs Appeal No. 76484 of 2018 - FINAL ORDER No. 75460/2023 - Dated:- 16-5-2023 - MR. RAJEEV TANDON MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Rajeev Agarwal, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Praveen Kumar Gupta. The appellant here in has filed this appeal assailing the order in appeal passed by the learned it Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re about the seized vehicle and its release. The adjudication proceedings culminated in absolute confiscation of the foreign origin goods., confiscation of the seized vehicle and its release under section 125 of the Customs Act, imposition of penalty of Rs.1,00,00 on Shri Praveen Kumar Gupta under section 112 of the Customs Act, a penalty of Rs.20,000 under section 112(b) of the Customs Act on Shri Mukesh Rahman(who did not participate in the adjudication proceedings) and the confiscation of Indian origin, ginger used for concealment of the foreign origin goods. 3. In appeal before this Tribunal while denying the ownership of the foreign origin goods seized and ordered confiscation, the appellant had essentially the following to state: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmed to have entered into business with him in the past as well. The department also relied on decisions rendered by various judicial authorities, including that of the Supreme Court in support in the case of Naresh G Sukhwani v. Union of India, 1998,83 ELT 258 SC for the premise that voluntary statement of co-accused can form the sole basis of conviction. It is their case that the statements given by the two accused/noticee were voluntary in nature, and had not been retracted. 5. It is an admitted fact on record that accused Praveen Kumar Gupta did visit the Custom House at around 8 PM on the day of the seizure allegedly for enquiry of the seizure of the vehicle and its release. It was at this point in time that the driver of the vehicl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that statement of co-accused cannot be, the sole basis of imposition of penalty is the proposition that would vary with the facts and circumstances of the case. In fact the honourable Supreme Court in the case of (Naresh G Sukhwani V. union of India, 1998(83) ELT 258 SC) had held that the statement of co-accused when not retracted, was substantive piece of evidence. In the present case, as a matter of fact, the prompt and forthwith identification of the accused Sri Praveen Kumar Gupta, by the driver, co-accused clearly connects, the appellant to the contravention concerning smuggling of seized goods of foreign origin. The statement under section 108 of the Customs Act recorded by Customs Officers is material piece of evidence and this incr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
