Tribunal upholds pre-deposit order for customs violations involving gold; denial of cross-examination rights deemed justified.

The Tribunal upheld the impugned order requiring petitioners to make a pre-deposit of penalties for customs violations involving a significant quantity of gold. It found no violation of natural justice in denying cross-examination rights and deemed inculpatory statements admissible due to corroboration. Despite a petitioner's financial hardship plea, each was directed to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs, emphasizing the seriousness of the offense. Failure to comply by the specified date would result in further action by the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of penalty.
2. Denial of cross-examination.
3. Admissibility of inculpatory statements.
4. Financial hardship of the petitioners.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Waiver of Pre-deposit of Penalty:
The petitioners sought waiver of the pre-deposit of penalties of Rs. 10 lakhs each under Section 112(a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal considered whether the impugned order was prima facie sustainable in law. The Tribunal noted the magnitude and gravity of the evidence against the petitioners, including the seizure of 2250 gold biscuits weighing 262.125 Kgs valued at more than Rs. 8.74 crores. The Tribunal directed each petitioner to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs on or before 29th May 1992, subject to which the pre-deposit of the balance amount would be dispensed with pending appeal.

2. Denial of Cross-examination:
The petitioners contended that the denial of the right to cross-examine the individuals who had given inculpatory statements against them violated the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal examined the principles of natural justice, emphasizing that they are flexible and vary from case to case. The Tribunal referred to several judgments, including those of the Supreme Court and High Courts, which held that the right to cross-examination is not an absolute right in quasi-judicial proceedings and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Tribunal concluded that prima facie there was no infirmity in the impugned order on the ground of denial of cross-examination.

3. Admissibility of Inculpatory Statements:
The petitioners argued that the inculpatory statements were not voluntary and should not be relied upon. The Tribunal noted that the inculpatory statements given by the co-accused were subsequently retracted. The Tribunal referred to the judgments which held that retracted statements could still be admissible and relied upon, provided they were corroborated by other evidence. The Tribunal found that the inculpatory statements were corroborated by other evidence, including the recovery of contraband gold and other circumstances. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the statements were prima facie admissible.

4. Financial Hardship of the Petitioners:
One of the petitioners, Shri Abubucker, pleaded financial hardship, stating that he was unable to make the pre-deposit of the penalty despite being an Income Tax assessee and owning a house and a medical shop. He offered to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 50,000. The Tribunal considered the financial hardship plea but directed each petitioner to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs, considering the gravity of the offense and the value of the contraband gold involved.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that prima facie there was no infirmity in the impugned order on the grounds of violation of natural justice or the admissibility of inculpatory statements. The petitioners were directed to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs each by 29th May 1992, failing which appropriate orders would be passed.

---