three grounds to assail the impugned order of detention, namely,
i) that retraction of the confession statement must be forwarded to the Officer concerned ... giving any statement by the detenu and it is more than a retraction;
ii) that there has not been real and proper consideration
recorded
their statement by way of third degree method and hence, they retracted their
confessional statements through their bail applications on 01.09.2013. The
detenus have ... vitiated the detention
order. The detaining authority failed to consider the retraction, and rejected
the same in writing.
3.8. Further, the detenus have submitted that
alleged forged signatures.
7. Whether the Tribunal is right in rejecting the retraction of the statement by employees of the appellant's company when ... Department by way of examination of them or issued summons regarding retraction, when the statute specifically provides for such a contingency and therefore, Tribunal ought
recorded in terms of Section 37(3) FEMA, 1999. The petitioner retracted the statement by submitting a letter dated 18.03.2002 and his son Mr.Lalit ... wrote the statement of his father / petitioner, also submitted a letter of retraction dated 18.03.2002. It is further submitted that from the documents seized
specific finding of the Commissioner is that the importer has not retracted the statement. Therefore, it is a clear case of admission of improper import ... evade payment of duty. This statement, as stated earlier, has not been retracted. Therefore, the intention to evade payment of duty on the imported goods
gave a confession statement. As a matter of fact, Nagarajan/A1 retracted his confession statement.
(iii)It is the stand of the Petitioner that
plaintiff wanted to make it sure that the defendant will not retract from the deal. That is why, immediately after the discussion
elaborately referring to the factual contentions raised contended that the petitioner has retracted all the statements and the other persons, who were examined also retracted
relied upon, as the admission is nowhere
repudiated/retracted/explained.
7.1. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision
reported
further submitted that due to loss of skull portion, brain was retracted.
5. It is also the further contention of the learned counsel
