ANIL MANSARAMANI AND 5 ORS Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the above appeals arise out of the common order of the Additional Collector of Customs, Madras, dated 11th March, 1987 and are inter-connected, they are taken up together and disposed of by a single order.

(2.) The appeals are directed against the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, Madras, referred to above, absolutely confiscating Integrated Circuits and transistors of foreign origin respectively valued at Rs. 2,80,000 and Rs. 1,55,000 under Section 111 (d) & (p) and further consignment of Integrated Circuits and Air conditioner & Compressor of foreign origin valued at Rs. 2,25,000 and Rs. 2,600 and recovered from the residence and out house of appellant Ralph D'Couto; and allowing Integrated Circuits and Transistors to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,00,000 and the Air conditioners and Compressors on a fine of Rs. 3,000 besides duty, and imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 each on appellants Anil Mansaramani, Sunil Desai and Ralph D'Couto, and Rs. 25,000 each on appellants Vikramamurthy and Srikant Jha; and a penalty of Rs. 5,000 on appellant Adrian D' Couto under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, the 'Act' for short.

(3.) SHRI Chawla, the learned counsel for appellant Anil Mansaramani, at the outset submitted that the impugned order of confiscation and penalty has been passed against his client on the basis of two inculpatory statements recorded by the authorities from appellant Ralph D'Couto on 28.9.1985 and 10.12.1985 in regard to the goods under seizure. It was urged that reliance has been placed in extenso on the said inculpatory statements of appellant Ralph D'Couto under the impugned order. The learned counsel contended that by a reply to the show cause notice dated 7th April, 1986 Anil Mansaramani specifically prayed for the cross-examination of appellant Ralph D'Couto and also the officers who recorded the statements. It was urged that notwithstanding the fact that reliance has been placed against appellant Anil Mansaramani in the said two statements recorded from Ralph D'Couto, no opportunity was given to appellant Anil Mansaramani to cross-examine Ralph D'Couto or the officers who recorded the statements. The learned counsel, therefore, assailed the impugned order as violative of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel further submitted that in the context of the case on grounds of violation of natural justice while setting aside the impugned order the appeal may not be remitted for reconsideration at this distance of time as it would result in great hardship and prejudice to his client. It was further contended that the impugned order has been passed by the adjudicating authority being conscious of the fact that appellant Anil Mansaramani was denied of an opportunity of cross-examination of Ralph D'Couto and others and in such a situation a remand is not warranted at all and the appeal should be disposed of without reference to the inculpatory statements of Ralph D'Couto.