TMI Blog1962 (1) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on the charge of violation of the Sea Customs Act. The petitioner made two statements before the Customs Officers on the 16th May, 1960. It is the petitioner's case that these two statements were extracted from the petitioner by pressure and coercion. It is, however, the respondents' case that the petitioner made the two statements voluntarily. On the 17th May, 1960 the said diamonds were seized by the Customs Officers. On the 2nd September 1960 the Assistant Collector of Customs, Preventive Department, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner was thereafter given a hearing. Thereafter the first respondent, who is the Additional Collector of Customs, passed the said impugned order. By that order the first respondent ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in the impugned order and particularly in paragraph 16 thereof. The statements in paragraph 16 of the order specifically mention that the first respondent reached his conclusion on two considerations mentioned as (a) and (b) in that paragraph, not cumulatively but on each of them independently of the other. The present contention is covered by the said consideration mentioned as (a) in paragraph 16. Even if the petitioner was right in his present contention, the petitioner would still have to succeed also in respect of the consideration mentioned as (b) in that paragraph. The latter consideration is based not on a presumption under section 178A but on evidence, as if the burden of proof was not on the petitioner but on the Department. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hikhabhai Patel and in spite of demand no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine him. In paragraph 20 of the impugned order it has been specifically stated that for the determination of this point about the imposition of personal penalty the first respondent did place reliance upon the statements of the said witness Shankerbhai. In paragraph 21 of the order it has further been stated that as copies of the statements of the said Shankerbhai had already been supplied to the petitioner, the principles of natural justice had been amply complied with and that in the opinion of the first respondent the principles of natural justice did not enjoin on him to all the cross-examination of Shankerbhai. It has been further specificall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
