PANA SHAH Vs. COLLECTOR OF C EX AND CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) dated 2.11.83 confirming the order of the Deputy Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Siliguri dated d27.6.83 absolutely confiscating old used garments of foreign origin valued at Rs. 1,48,800/- and imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Act for short. On 10.12.82 at about 4 am. in the morning the Customs authorities intercepted the truck near Teesta bridge. Since the goods were of foreign origin and since the appellant who was the occupant in the truck could not give any satisfactory explanation for the illicit possession of the same, the authorities effected seizure of the same as per law. THE appellant gave a confessional statement on 12.12.82 before the authorities admitting his offence with reference to the goods. THE statement of the appellant was corroborated by the driver of the truck, one Sri Monoranjan Das and Sri Kanhai Jaiswal, handyboy. It is under these cricumstances after further investigations proceedings were instituted against the appellant resulting in the present impugned order.

(2.) Sri Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that while the seizure took place on 10.12.82 at 4 a.m. the seizure list was prepared only on 12.12.82. It was further urged that the inculpatory statement recorded for the appellant is neither voluntary nor true and was also subsequently retracted when the appellant gave a reply to the show cause notice. The learned counsel further urged that the statement was recorded under coercion and threat while he was under detention. The learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sevantilal Karsondas Modi v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr., AIR 1979 SC, at page 705 to contend that such statement recorded under official threat or coercion would be hit by Section 24 of the Evidence Act. The learned counsel further urged that the appellant was detained for more than twenty-four hours, and the detention being illegal in view of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India, the impugned order would stand vitiated. Finally the learned counsel pleaded that in any event since the appellant has disowned the goods, the quantum of penalty is harsh and excessive.

(3.) WE have carefully considered the submissions made before us. The fact that the goods are of foreign origin and were seized by the Customs authorities is not disputed. The appellant has not claimed the goods and has now disowned it and declined any connection thereto. Therefore, the question that would arise for our consideration in the present case is, whether the evidence on record brings home the charge against the appellant. The appellant has admittedly given a statement which is inculpatory in nature, but the fact remains that the statement was retracted by the appellant only at the time when he gave a reply to the show cause notice after nearly about four months. WE have gone through the statement and we are satisfied that the same is voluntary and true meriting acceptance. The plea of the learned counsel that the statement is not voluntary and was brought about under circumstances of threat and coercion is not acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is absolutely no explanation on the part of the appellant for belated retraction. Even when the appellant was produced for remand before the Judicial Magistrate, the appellant never made any grievance against the Customs Officers of any alleged illegal detention or coercion in recording the statement. The plea of the learned counsel that the seizure list was prepared after a delay of nearly about 2 days is of no relevance because, as rightly pointed out by the learned departmental representative, the goods were originally detained by the Customs authorities and the goods being large in number, nearly 8,000 pcs, the authorities took time to sort them out before effecting seizure. The ruling relied on by the learned counsel has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the ruling cited by the learned counsel the Supreme Court has found that the statement was recorded under threat and coercion attracting the bar under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, on careful consideration of the entire evidence on record, we are inclined to hold that the charge against the appellant has been brought home. Taking into consideration the fact that the seizure was in the year 1982 and that the appellant has completely disowned the goods which have been absolutely confiscated, we are inclined to hold that the interests of justice would be met if the penalty imposed on the appellant is reduced to Rs. 1,000/- (One thousand) and we order accordingly. Except for this modification, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.