1993 (3) TMI 212 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Foreign Gold Origin & Penalties: Voluntary Statements, Consistency, Evidence

UMESH CHAND GOYAL Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE

UMESH CHAND GOYAL Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE - 1993 (67) E.L.T. 565 (Tribunal) Issues Involved:1. Voluntariness of the applicant's statements.2. Legal correctness of accepting self-incriminating statements.3. Consistency and voluntariness of the statements.4. Determination of the gold's foreign origin based on purity.5. Inference about the source of gold based on markings and purity.6. Legality of gold confiscation and penalty imposition.7. Rejection of statutory records maintained by the goldsmith.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:I. Voluntariness of the applicant's statements:The applicant argued that the Tribunal did not consider material facts that could vitiate the voluntariness of his statements. Specifically, the applicant was arrested on 11-9-1986 but was not produced before the Magistrate until 14-9-1986, implying illegal confinement and coercion. The Tribunal, however, found that the statements were recorded in the applicant's handwriting and rejected the plea of coercion, noting that no medical examination report was produced to support claims of physical torture. The Tribunal emphasized that the reasons for considering the statements voluntary were discussed in paragraphs 16 and 17 of its order.II. Legal correctness of accepting self-incriminating statements:The Tribunal upheld the legal principle that self-incriminating statements made voluntarily are admissible. The applicant contended that the Tribunal's observation was incorrect, but the Tribunal reiterated that the statements were voluntarily made and contained detailed information about the applicant's dealings in foreign gold.III. Consistency and voluntariness of the statements:The applicant argued that the Tribunal acted on statements despite inconsistencies and the fact that they were made under duress. The Tribunal, however, held that the statements were validly made and consistent enough to establish the applicant's guilt. The Tribunal also noted that the retraction of the statements was considered but found unconvincing.IV. Determination of the gold's foreign origin based on purity:The applicant contended that high purity alone should not determine the gold as foreign origin. The Tribunal, however, held that the gold's high purity (23.5 carats) and the applicant's own admissions about dealing in foreign gold were sufficient to conclude its foreign origin.V. Inference about the source of gold based on markings and purity:The applicant argued that the gold was obtained by melting ornaments, but the Tribunal found this claim inconsistent due to the presence of markings on some pieces and the high purity of the gold. The Tribunal concluded that these factors indicated the gold was not obtained from melted ornaments.VI. Legality of gold confiscation and penalty imposition:The applicant argued that the Tribunal upheld the confiscation and penalty without establishing specific contraventions. The Tribunal, however, found that the applicant's actions of dealing in foreign gold over time justified the penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act.VII. Rejection of statutory records maintained by the goldsmith:The applicant contended that the Tribunal wrongly rejected the statutory records maintained by the goldsmith, Shri Kali Charan. The Tribunal, however, did not find these records convincing enough to counter the evidence of the gold's foreign origin and the applicant's admissions.Conclusion:The Tribunal rejected the reference applications, concluding that the questions raised were primarily factual and had been adequately addressed in its detailed order. The Tribunal found no merit in the applicant's claims that material facts were overlooked or that any questions of law warranted a reference to the High Court. The Tribunal upheld the findings of voluntariness, the foreign origin of the gold based on high purity, and the imposition of penalties based on the applicant's admissions and consistent evidence.