1988 (3) TMI 281 - AT - Customs

Tribunal annuls order for Anil Mansaramani; exonerates others; reduces penalties; orders customs procedure reforms.

ANIL MANSARAMANI AND 5 OTHERS Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order for appellant Anil Mansaramani due to the denial of cross-examination, remanding the matter for re-enquiry. ... Penal proceeding - Cross-examination Issues Involved:1. Violation of principles of natural justice regarding cross-examination.2. Lack of specific charges and evidence against appellant Sunil Desai.3. Connection of appellants Vikramamurthy and Srikant Jha to the seized goods.4. Quantum of penalty imposed on appellant Ralph D'Couto.5. Quantum of penalty imposed on appellant Adrian D'Couto.Detailed Analysis:1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice Regarding Cross-Examination:The primary issue raised by appellant Anil Mansaramani was whether the impugned order violated the principles of natural justice by denying him the opportunity to cross-examine Ralph D'Couto and the officers who recorded the statements. The Tribunal found that reliance was extensively placed on the confessional statements of Ralph D'Couto dated 28-9-1985 and 10-12-1985. Despite specific requests for cross-examination, the adjudicating authority did not make the witnesses available. The Tribunal noted that the mere fact that Ralph D'Couto was in jail or that an officer was on leave did not justify the denial of cross-examination. The Tribunal emphasized that the adjudicating authorities should have facilitated cross-examination, even if it meant conducting it in jail. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside for appellant Anil Mansaramani and the matter was remanded for re-enquiry, ensuring the opportunity for cross-examination.2. Lack of Specific Charges and Evidence Against Appellant Sunil Desai:Appellant Sunil Desai contended that no specific charges were set out against him in the show cause notice regarding the goods under seizure and that there was no evidence connecting him to the seized goods. The Tribunal observed that the adjudicating authority acknowledged no connection between Sunil Desai and the seized goods, yet proceeded with a penalty based on alleged past transactions in 1984. The Tribunal held that the show cause notice must contain precise and specific allegations, and since no specific charge was made against Sunil Desai regarding the 1984 transactions, he could not be penalized for them. The Tribunal found no legal evidence connecting Sunil Desai to the seized goods and exonerated him by giving him the benefit of doubt.3. Connection of Appellants Vikramamurthy and Srikant Jha to the Seized Goods:The arguments and circumstances considered for appellant Sunil Desai were equally applicable to appellants Vikramamurthy and Srikant Jha. The Tribunal found no evidence connecting them to the seized goods and exonerated them by giving them the benefit of doubt, allowing their appeals.4. Quantum of Penalty Imposed on Appellant Ralph D'Couto:Appellant Ralph D'Couto did not contest the appeal on merits but pleaded for a reduction in the quantum of penalty. The Tribunal took into account that Ralph D'Couto was detained under COFEPOSA for about 1 year and 6 months, was in abject poverty, and played the role of a middleman for monetary consideration. Considering these factors, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 50,000.5. Quantum of Penalty Imposed on Appellant Adrian D'Couto:Appellant Adrian D'Couto also did not contest the appeal on merits and sought a reduction in the penalty. The Tribunal noted that he was penalized for the seizure of one air conditioner and one compressor from his residential out house. Given his immediate cooperation and the circumstances, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 1,000.Conclusion:The Tribunal remanded the appeal of appellant Anil Mansaramani for re-enquiry, allowed the appeals of appellants Vikramamurthy, Srikant Jha, and Sunil Desai, and dismissed the appeals of Ralph D'Couto and Adrian D'Couto with modifications in the penalties. The Tribunal also directed a copy of the order to the Central Board of Customs & Excise for necessary investigative and remedial action regarding the systemic lapses in customs procedures.