Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.47 seconds)
Appearance For vs Appearance For on 22 October, 2013 cites

Surjeet Singh Chhabra vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 October, 1996

The Apex Courts Judgment in case of Surjeet Singh Chhabra Vs. Union of India reported in 1997 (89) ELT-646 (SC) was in the background of the fact that the petitioner in that case had admitted that he had purchased gold bars abroad and got the same converted into Gold Kara and the cross-examination of pancha witnesses was sought only on the point regarding the place at which the recovery was made-at the baggage belt on at Green Channel and since this point, in view of his confession admitting the purchase of gold and its conversion into Kara, was not relevant, the Apex Court held that the denial of cross-examination of the witnesses was not violative of principles of natural justice. The ratio of this judgment of the Apex Court can not be generalized. In fact, in the above mentioned judgments of High Courts and the Apex Court, the general principles laid down on the question of permitting cross examination of the witnesses, whose statements have been relied upon, are that 
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 235 - Full Document

Gian Chand And Others vs The State Of Punjab on 13 November, 1961

Not only that, it is interesting to note that while recoding the statement of the appellant, he was not asked even a single question as to whether or not he knew that the textile allegedly brought by Mrs. Olga etc. was either smuggled into India or was brought into India in contravention of any other law. The essential ingredient of necessary knowledge of smuggled nature of the goods or the essential mens rea on the part of the appellant is clearly missing on the face of it. As a result, the appellant cannot be said to be liable for any offence under the Customs Act and the impugned order is absolutely unwarranted and shows total non application of mind on the part of the Adjudicating authority while passing that order. 9.9 The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Chand Vs. State of Punjab reported as AIR 1962 SC 496 has held that under the Customs Law two matters had to be established before a person could be held guilty of that offence. Firstly, that the goods were imported into the country either without payment of duty or in contravention of any restriction or prohibition imposed by the statute and secondly, that the accused knowing that the goods were of that character did any act of omission or commission. This decision had stood the test of time and has been followed in a catena of decisions delivered by Honble Supreme Court and the various High Courts in the Country. As a result, the appellant cannot be said to be liable for any offence under the Customs Act and the impugned adjudication order is absolutely unwarranted, contrary to law and shows total non application of mind on the part of the Adjudicating authority while passing the said order. 9.10 The appellant has never been knowingly involved in purchasing, selling or otherwise dealing with Chinese silk textiles, mentioned in column B imported on dates mentioned in column A of Table 14 of the Show Cause notice which were liable to be confiscated u/s 111 of Customs Act 1962. Hence, no penalty u/s 112(b) of Customs Act 1962 can be imposed on the appellant. SUBMISSIONS OF REVENUE 10.1 On Behalf of Revenue it was submitted that a diary seized in the course of investigation disclosed telephone numbers, name and address of Abdul Qahar who brought the appellant to the purview of investigation. The appellant identified photo and mobile number of Mamoor Khan as well as Dil Agha. Acquaintance of that appellant with Mamoor Khan was from April 2000 when Mamoor Khan and Dil Agha visited shop of the appellant as well as in contact with him by phone. 10.2 According to Revenue Abdul Qahar in his statement stated that he knows Ms. Olga bringing the Chinese Silk from abroad. He was introduced by the appellant trader to Ms. Olga. Accordingly, the goods smuggled by Ms. Olgas were delivered to all the appellant traders who were placing orders with Mamoor Khan. Wherever Ms. Olga was directing to deliver goods, Abdul Qahar was doing so. All these transactions were no where accounted for by trader appellant since Ms. Olga was cautioning Abdul Qahar to be careful with the goods for delivery to appellant since those goods were smuggled and had not suffered Customs Duty. All these aspects come from para 12 of the adjudication order. 10.3 Statement of Wali Ullha extracted in para 156 of the Order-in-Original exhibits that after the Chinese Silk were brought to Samir Guest House from Airport, Mamoor Khan used to contract the appellant who come and pack up the goods and Walli Ullha used to deliver the goods at their shop under instruction of Mamoor Khan. 10.4 It was further submitted by Revenue that Mamoor Khan was collecting sale proceed from the shop-keepers. It was an established fact that Abdul Quyam who was Manager of Samir Guest House stated in the statement recorded from him that the goods brought by the party of Ms. Olga were sold to nearby traders (reference para 160 of O-I-O). Mamoor Khan introduced Dil Agha to many shop-keepers of Chandini Chowk who were buyers of Chinese Silk illicitly imported. Dil Agha in his statement specifically named Gopal Dokania to be the remembered buyer of the goods. It is also fact on record from para 161 (e) of O-I-O that Walli Ullha used to supply the goods to the traders appellants and all the traders were in close contact with the conduits to buy the goods on payment of cash with utter disregard to law and not insisting evidence showing payment of customs duty on such goods. 10.5 It was further submission of Revenue that before and after the offending goods arrived in India calls were exchanged (Ref: Table 10 and 11 of show cause notice) between the conduits who were supplier of the goods and the trader appellants. When the smuggled goods came to India ultimate disposal thereof was made by the appellant traders proving that they had conscious knowledge about the origin of the goods, value thereof as well as non duty paid character of the same. So also when investigated, telephonic contacts of the appellant with smuggling racket proved his ill will to make ill-gain by such contacts since no one shall merely contact without any gain or interest and concur with him. The manner how the goods were reaching to the appellant trader motive of the deal and unaccounted purchase as well as sale of the offending goods proved that transactions were made clandestinely. 10.6 It was further submission of Revenue that echoing evidence both oral and documentary as well circumstantial self speak against appellant who dealt smuggled goods that came to India without payment of duty and confiscable. Appropriate penalty was therefore levied in adjudication and need not be interfered. FINDING AND CONCLUSION OF TRIBUNAL
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 135 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

Rajiv Kumar Sharma vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 18 November, 2011

He was quite aware of the smuggling character of the goods supplied to him by Mamoor Khan. 12.7 It is not necessary that investigation should ask the appellant leading question to defeat object of the investigation meant to bring the offender to the fold of law. What that was relevant for the investigation were put to discover truth and make the case of investigation successful. Appellants plea that other traders were not brought to the charge under law has no basis in view of the law laid down by Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Rajiv Kumar Sharma V. CCe, Adjudication  2012 (276) ELT 321 (DEL) holding that negative equality cannot be pleaded as a defence to any action which is in accord with law and justified. It was also held in that judgment that when the reason why telephonic conversation took place remained unexplained that does establish and corroborate a close relationship between the parties to the calls. The appellant failed to lead any cogent reason why calls were made as appearing in Table 10 and 11 of the impugned orders.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - S Khanna - Full Document

Sachidananda Banerjee A.C.C. Calcutta vs Sitaram Agarwala on 5 October, 1965

12.8 The term concerned appearing in section112 of the Act has been explained by Apex Court in the case of Sachidananda Banerji V. Sitaram Agarwala  1999 (110) ELT 292 (SC) laying down the law that this term is to be given wide interpretation and even if a person has no physical connection with the smuggled goods, he is liable if he is interested or consciously takes any steps to promote smuggling. In the present case the appellant promoted smuggling acquiring and selling the smuggled goods consciously knowing origin of the goods and the oblique motive.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 29 - K S Rao - Full Document

Radha Kishan Bhatia vs Union Of India And Others on 23 November, 1964

As has been held in the case of Radha Kishan Bhatia V. UOI  2004 (178) ELT 8 (SC) that it is immaterial what meaning be attributed to the word concerned. It can have the meaning interested and it may also have the meaning involved or engaged or mixed up. 12.9 Appellants interest in the smuggled goods could not be ruled out when credible statements of Abdul Qahar, Wali and Dil Agha recorded by investigation discovered truth of the deals.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 153 - R Dayal - Full Document

K.T.M.S. Mohd. And Anr vs Union Of India on 28 April, 1992

Similarly as has been held in the case of K. T. M. S. Mohammed and Others V. UOI  1992 SCC (3) 178 that merely because a statement is retracted that cannot be said to be involuntary or unlawfully extracted. It is for the maker thereof who alleges inducement, threat and promise etc to establish that such improper means has been adapted to. 12.10 Appellant lost his right to gain from the plea of retraction of statement by Abdul Qahar when truth of ill deal was established by investigation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 194 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Olga Kozireva vs Union Of India And Others on 18 May, 2001

3. Ascertaining that the import aforesaid was made in contravention of the provisions of the Act, statement of Ms. Olga (the passenger) was recorded u/s 108 of the Act. She stated that she had been coming to India during last three years prior to 28.08.2000 and was bringing Chinese silk to India for sale. Her pass port also revealed that she had made short trips to India and stayed in different hotels in Paharganj, New Delhi, where the buyers of the smuggled china silk used to contact her for purchase of such goods. Such fact was noticed by Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Olga Kozireva V. UOI while deciding her bail petition on 18.5.2001 as reported in 2001 Cri LJ 3701 : 2002 (63)DRJ 183 : 2002 (80) ECC 451. On such basis, investigation proceeded to inquire into the matter further to trace the racket and ascertain Revenue loss of the past. She was also arrested on 29th August u/s 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 and produced in the Court of the ACMM, Patiala House Court and remanded to judicial custody.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 7 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next