Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The petitioner started a concern in the name and style of M/s. Majestic International some time in October, 2000. A Current Account was opened in the name of the concern on 20.10.2000 with the Bank of Baroda, S.I.E.T. Branch, Chennai-18. Petitioner took lease of the premises at Door No.1, P.P. Amman Koil III Street, Tondiar Nagar, Chennai-81 on 10.7.2000. He obtained a Certificate of Importer and Exporter Code from the Ministry of Commerce dated 2.11.2000 preceded by his application dated 28.10.2000. Petitioner placed an order for import of 360 numbers of table fans sometime in January, 2001 and the goods arrived by the Vessel "TIGER METRO 865-N " from Singapore. Petitioner filed a bill of entry through his clearing agent M/s. Lotus International Services dated 23.1.2001 as per the invoice issued by M/s. Sea Field Impex, Singapore in the name of M/s. Majestic International. The quantity of goods indicated was 360 table fans in 12 wooden cases with a unit price of 9.81 Singapore Dollars and a total price of 353 1.60 Singapore Dollars. The said bill of entry was assessed by the Customs and an amount of Rs.64,968/- was paid as duty on 23.1.2001. When the above mentioned wooden cases were inspected by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on 2.2.2001, the wooden cases were found to contain 90 table fans as against the declared quantity of 360 table fans, besides other electronic items like Cell Phones, V.C.D. Players, Air Conditioner Compressors and Tapes, having a total C.I.F. value of Rs.90,74,760/- and an approximate market value of rupees 1.6 crores. They were seized under a magazar. Summons dated 3.2.2001, 4.2.2001 and 5.2.2001 were issued by the D.R.I., Chennai to Thiru T.S. Kamalakannan, partner of M/s. Lotus International Services, the Customs House Agent for the subject consignment, who gave a voluntary statement dated 4.2.2001 that the petitioner was introduced to him by one Thiru Vinodh Kumar and that the petitioner had earlier requested for the clearance of Mini Car Fans from Singapore and that he handled the goods in question by filing the bill of entry. Petitioner did not pay heed to the summons issued to him and they were returned undelivered by the postal authorities. Petitioner thereafter appeared before the D.R.I., Chennai on 14.3.2001 on his own and gave a voluntary statement stating that he had opened a current account and obtained a P.A. Number from the Income Tax Department and the Importer Exporter Code from the Commerce Department and also that he had imported the goods and that some persons, whose names and details he did not remember, informed him that certain amount will be paid to him whenever goods were imported in the name of his company. He has also referred to the goods imported by Krishnakumar in the name of M/s. Blue Wave Impex. The electronic goods and table fans were seized on 2.2 .2001 for having been imported in contravention of the provisions of Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 readwith Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1982 by giving a false declaration with a deliberate intention to evade payment of customs duty thereby and since the items were liable for confiscation under Sections 111(d), 111(i) and 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Petitioner was arrested by the officers of the D.R.I., Chennai on 14.3.2001 and produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O. II), Egmore, Chennai, who remanded him to judicial custody till 29.3.2 001. At the time of remand, petitioner had complained that he was beaten up by the Intelligence Officers. He had filed a bail application in the Court of the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate on 15.3.2001 , inter alia, contending that the statement was obtained from him by threat, coercion and undue influence and he retracted from his statement as involuntary. The D.R.I., Chennai filed a counter dated 21.3.2 001 denying the allegations made by the petitioner in the bail application. The Government, after taking into consideration the allegations contained in the bail application and after having been satisfied that the said allegations are baseless, after-thought and devoid of merits and rejecting the same, passed an order of detention after having been satisfied that the petitioner had indulged in smuggling goods.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted the following in reference to the specific grounds argued before us :

(a) Copies of all the materials placed before the detaining authority had been furnished to the detenu. Translation of all the documents except those relating to customs clearance, opening of bank account, obtaining of import export code from the office of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, which the detenu has dealt with as such, has been furnished. There is a proper comunication of the grounds and there has not been any failure in this regard.

The petitioner had not set out the documents which have not been translated. In the counter, it is stated that Tamil translation of all the documents excepting the customs clearance, opening of bank account, obtaining of import export code from the Office of the Director General of Foreign Trade, which the detenu has dealt with as such, have been furnished. The detenu is aged 35 years and he has admittedly studied upto X Standard. Admittedly, he had opened a current account in the Bank of Baroda, S.I.E.T. Branch and thereafter, applied for P.A. Number from the Income Tax Department and also obtained a Certificate of Importer Exporter Code. He had also taken a premises on lease at Door No.1, P.P. Amman Koil III Street, Tondiar Nagar, Chennai-81 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/- for eleven months. The invoice from the Singapore company shows that Majestic International had placed an order for 360 table fans, and on arrival of the consignment by the ship, the bill of entry was filed dated 23.1.2001 by Lotus International Services for the importer Majestic International describing the materials, i.e. 360 table fans. A customs duty of Rs.64,968/- was paid by Majestic International on 23.1.2001. From the magazar dated 2.2.2001, it is seen that the 12 backages contained electronic items valued at Rs.90,94,760/-. Though the bill of entry, the invoice raised by the Singapore company and the receipt of customs duty are not translated in Tamil, we find that these documents are the detenu's own documents and handled by the detenu himself and through his agent. Similarly, the petitioner's application for opening of a current account with the Bank of Baroda and his application in the form of declaration before the Ministry of Commerce were public documents, for which no translation is given. The detenu has acted on the basis of the bank account, the import export code number, the invoice order and the bill of entry. Petitioner has signed the documents like the application, declaration form and the certificate in English and therefore, we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of true English translation of these documents, petitioner could not make a proper representation. It is very clear that the detenu had a good working knowledge of English, even though he has studied upto X Standard.

11. Non-application of mind :

The detenu had placed orders for supply of 360 number of table fans with a Singapore company for the alleged cost of 3531.60 Singapore Dollars. The containers arrived by the Vessel on 19.1.2001. On specific intelligence information, the consignment was seized by the officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and they found that the bill of entry dated 23.1.2001 indicated that it was filed by M/s. Lotus International Services, Chennai on behalf of M/s. Majestic International. The invoice from the Singapore concern indicated the quantity of 360 table fans in 12 wooden cases with a unit price of 9.81 Singapore Dollars, the total price of which comes to 3,531.60 Singapore Dollars. The said bill of entry was already assessed by the Customs and a sum of Rs.64,968/- was paid as duty on 23.1.2001. However, finding that the import was contrary to the declaration and to evade customs duty, in the presence of the witnesses, a magazar was prepared and on inspection, it was found that the 12 wooden cases contained 90 table fans against the declared quantity of 360 table fans and the remaining were electronic goods having a total C.I.F. value of Rs.90,94,760/- and a market value of Rs.1.6 Crores. Inspite of a number of summons issued to the detenu, he did not appear. A statement was obtained from the detenu's Customs House Agent T.S. Kamalakannan, wherein he inter alia stated that the detenu was introduced to him by one Thiru Vinodh Kumar and that the detenu requested him to handle a clearance of his import consignment. It is after all this, the detenu appeared before the D.R.I. and gave a statement dated 14.3.2001. The said statement, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, is exculpatory and there was no confession in the strict sense of the term. What he stated is borne out of records. He speaks of the opening of bank account, applying for permanent income tax number and obtaining the export and import code. He also speaks of taking of the room on a monthly rent for his company. He further says that he had obtained a consignment earlier cleared through Kamalakannan. This is the second import consignment. He answers in the negative to the question whether he has made the payment for the consignment imported in December and how the second consignment was imported in the company's name and who is the proprietor/incharge of the Singapore company. According to him, no payment has been made. He says that he was not present at the time of examination of the items by the Customs authorities and he does not have the money to pay the customs duty and he does not know for whom the goods were cleared, though the goods were imported in his company's name. He implicates Kamalakannan that is only through him that his company's name was used. Thus, if we go through this alleged statement dated 14.3.2001, it could be seen that it is mostly in the form of questions and answers. There is absolutely nothing to find confession of any guilt. Therefore, strictly speaking, the question of retraction of the alleged confession does not arise at all in this case. In KANDA PADAYACHI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [1971 (2) S.C.C. 641], the Supreme Court held that a confession has to be direct acknowledgment of the guilt of the offence in question and such as would be sufficient by itself for conviction. If it only falls short of the plenary acknowledgment of guilt, it will not be confession, even though the statement is of some incriminating fact which, taken along with other evidence, would prove his guilt. Such a statement is admission, but not confession. An admission of fact however incriminating but not by itself establishing the guilt of the maker of such admission would not amount to confession within the meaning of Sections 24 to 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. Applyingf this principle, it has to be held that the alleged statement made before the D.R.I. in this case would not amount to confession.