Ankoo Kohli S/O Late Sri Inderjit ... vs Commissioner Of Customs
2007 Latest Caselaw 697 Del

JUDGMENT

V.B. Gupta, J.

1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order dated 25th July, 2003 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal( for short as Tribunal) in Appeal No. C/509/2002 NBC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28th October, 1999, the officers of Custom Department conducted a search of the godown belonging to the Appellant and Ball Bearings of foreign origin worth Rs. 1,11,76,250/- were recovered. Since the Appellant could not produce proof in respect of the lawful import/possession of the Ball Bearings, the same were taken into possession. In his statement, the Appellant stated that these Ball Bearings belonged to one Mr.Ram Niwas who sent them through transport company and gave the telephone number of the transport company. Enquiries were made from Ram Niwas who denied any relation with the Appellant. Further, enquiry was also made from the transporter who also denied that any consignment was delivered to the Appellant at the given address. After issuance of the show cause notice, the adjudicating authority confiscated the Ball Bearings and ordered release of the goods on payment of redemption fine and also imposed penalty of Rs. 25 lacs under Section 112 of the Customs Act.

3. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal. In that appeal the Appellant did not challenge the order of confiscation, however, he challenged the penalty imposed upon him. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority, however, it reduced the penalty to Rs. 5 lacs.

4. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that there is no evidence of smuggling against the Appellant and the goods were of Ram Niwas and the Appellant was having no knowledge of the contraband goods. There is no evidence of transportation of goods, no invoices, no cash book, no bill book etc. indicating the trade of smuggling, was ever found from the possession of the Appellant. The application of the Appellant for cross-examination before Commissioner of Customs was wrongly rejected and there is violation of principles of natural justices. Learned Counsel for the Appellant cited a large number of judgments in support of his contention.

5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent has contended that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal.

6. As per statement of the Appellant recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, he admitted the recovery of ball bearings from his godowns, as he states:

that on being asked, I once again state that the portion situated at 1st Floor above garage in the premises of B-62, Gujaranwala Town, Part-I, Delhi is under my occupancy and I have taken it on rent from the landlord Shri Joginder Chopra on payment of Rs. 2000/- per month. I also re-confirm that the payment for the rent is being made by me by cheque from my Saving Account maintained in Vijaya Bank, Bhikha-ji-cama place, New Delhi. I do not remember the bank account number. It is also further stated that I have checked up the address and telephone number of Libra Transport. The telephone number o Libra Transport is 3957304 and situated at Chabhi Ganj, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. As regard the seized goods i.e. ball bearings, on being asked I state that all the ball bearings of foreign origin, under seizure were supplied by Mr.Ram Niwas of Mumbai whose office address and telephone numbers I had already mentioned in my statement dated 28.10.99. On enquiry I further stated that I tried by level best to procure documents for the ball bearings of foreign origin recovered from my godown-cum-office situated at B-62, Gujaranwala Town, Part-I Delhi from Shri Ram Niwas but I could not get any documents for these goods. I never insisted earlier for documents of ball bearings of foreign origin purchased from Shri Ram Niwas, Mumbai, nor he had ever sent me the documents along with the consignment. I further stated that I am aware of the fact that to keep, to store, purchase, possess and goods of foreign origin without any legal documents is an offence punishable under provisions of Customs Act, 1962. I want to submit that this is my first offence and request for a light penalty. I undertook not to indulge in such activities in future. The above statement if given by me voluntarily without any pressure or duress and is based on facts.

7. The Appellant did not challenge the order of confiscation of the smuggled goods. The main contention of the Appellant is that opportunity to cross examine the witnesses was denied by the Commissioner of Customs. There is nothing on record to show that the Appellant challenged that order of the Commissioner of Customs and now at this stage, he cannot raise this plea before this Court. Moreover, having admitted his guilt, it is difficult to understand whom the Appellant wanted to cross examine and for what purpose.

8. Various judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the Appellant are not applicable for the facts of the present case.

9. There are concurrent findings of the fact with regard to the recovery of the ball bearings of foreign origin from the godown of the Appellant.

10. This being the position, we are of the opinion that there is no substantial question of law that arises for our consideration and we do not find any error in the view that has been taken by the Tribunal in this regard.

11. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.