Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ICD Dadri, Noida-201311) APPEARANCE:

Shri Ashish Bhatt, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Santosh Kumar, Authorised Representative for the Respondent WITH Customs Appeal No.70509 of 2017 (Arising out of Order-In-Original No.06-Pr.Commr./NOIDA-CUS/2017 dated 28.03.2017 passed by Principal Commissioner, Noida Customs) Shri Vipan Kumar Garg, Proprietor .....Appellant-II (M/s Vipan & Company, 281, Sector No.5A, G.T. Road, Sirhind Side, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab-147301) VERSUS Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), ....Respondent (ICD Dadri, Noida-201311) APPEARANCE:
Ms Jyotika Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Santosh Kumar, Authorised Representative for the Respondent WITH Customs Appeal No.70487 of 2017 (Arising out of Order-In-Original No.06-Pr.Commr./NOIDA-CUS/2017 dated 28.03.2017 passed by Principal Commissioner, Noida Customs) Shri Bhavesh Thakkar, .....Appellant-III (B-51, Navkunj No.4, Geeta Arcade Meera Road (E) Thane, Mumbai) VERSUS Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), ....Respondent (ICD Dadri, Noida-201311) Customs Appeal No.70508, 70509, 70483-70488 of 2017 APPEARANCE:

4.8 Statements of appellant 3 recorded on 15.07.2014 Customs Appeal No.70508, 70509, 70483-70488 of 2017 Customs Appeal No.70508, 70509, 70483-70488 of 2017 Customs Appeal No.70508, 70509, 70483-70488 of 2017 Customs Appeal No.70508, 70509, 70483-70488 of 2017 Customs Appeal No.70508, 70509, 70483-70488 of 2017 Customs Appeal No.70508, 70509, 70483-70488 of 2017 Customs Appeal No.70508, 70509, 70483-70488 of 2017 Statement recorded on 09/10.12.2014:

Customs Appeal No.70508, 70509, 70483-70488 of 2017 Customs Appeal No.70508, 70509, 70483-70488 of 2017 Customs Appeal No.70508, 70509, 70483-70488 of 2017 Customs Appeal No.70508, 70509, 70483-70488 of 2017 4.9 Statement of Appellant 4 recorded on 09/10.12.2014:
Customs Appeal No.70508, 70509, 70483-70488 of 2017 Customs Appeal No.70508, 70509, 70483-70488 of 2017 Customs Appeal No.70508, 70509, 70483-70488 of 2017 4.10 From the perusal of the statements as above we do not find any reason to hold that the statements dated 09/10.12.2014 were voluntary in nature. The said statement are typed written on all material details except for the request made by the appellants except for the request made by the appellant to take rest which has been allowed in hand by the investigating Customs Appeal No.70508, 70509, 70483-70488 of 2017 officer recording the statement. Appellant 4 has been for first time examined by the DRI on 09.12.2014 when he is shown certain statements which he accepts the next morning as reflecting his role in the entire scheme after staying overnight in the DRI office. He has not admitted anything in the potion of the statement recorded on 09.12.2014 and on the morning of 10.12.2014 he admits every statement made against him without a murmur and goes on to the extent of stating the paras of the statements made by the others, inculpating him to be arrested and produced before the ACJM. Interestingly the statement of Appellant 2 and Appellant 3 recorded on 10.12.2014 was shown to him on 09.12.2014. He retracted the statements made immediately on 10.12.2014 before the ACJM. Impugned order relies solely upon this statement to hold against him and impose the penalty under Section 112 (a) (i) of the Customs Act, 1962.