TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (8) TMI 252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ishwas carried contraband goods from Dubai for being landed at Daman in India. Accordingly the INS Brahmputtra took charge of the Jalaram Vishwas and brought it to Veraval and handed over the vessel and the crew members to Veraval Customs authorities. The Veraval Customs officers conducted investigations and recorded the statements of the Tindel of the Jalaram Vishwas, Shri Atham Fakir and Shri Rashid Ahmed, driver and the other crew members. These investigations revealed that the contraband goods including gold was meant for delivery to the appellant Shri Sukar Naran. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated for the confiscation of the goods, confiscation of the vessel Jalaram Vishwas and levying of penalties on the concerned persons under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act. After holding the due inquiry, the Collector of Customs passed the impugned order under Gold (Control) Act levying a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 on Shri Sukar Naran under Section 74. 3. Appearing on behalf of the appellant, advocate Shri S.M. Bhatt briefly narrated the facts of the case relating to the seizure of gold and levying of penalty on the appellant. He contended that the evidence against t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s at page 18 of the order with regard to the penal liability of Shri Sukar Naran Bakhia under the Gold (Control) Act, and the Tindel's statement implicating Shri Sukar Naran Bakhia. Shri Bhatt submitted that the other crew members had been engaged by Shri Atham Fakir. There was no connection between them and the appellant. As regards the Collector's observation for a common modus-operandi between the smuggling of the goods in the present case and the smuggling through "Al-Mashoor" in which Shri S.N. Bakhia was involved, Shri Bhatt submitted that the circumstances of these cases required the search of Shri Sukar Naran's premises to recover the half Riyal note to connect Shri Sukur Naran with the contraband goods. This was not done and therefore the Collector's reliance on the modus-operandi was not quite correct. Since there was no other evidence, the advocate of the appellant did not ask for cross-examination of the tindel or the other crew members in the course of the adjudication proceedings before the Collector. Shri Bhatt therefore submitted that the Collector's order of penalty should be set aside as the same was very harsh. 4. On behalf of the respondent, Shri N.K. Pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alty was the absence of any corroboration to the statement of Shri Atham Fakir. The learned advocate has contended that this statement is not acceptable as Shri Atham Fakir was under custody of the customs authorities from 17-2-1971 to 20-2-1971. Examining this contention it is seen that the statement of Shri Atham Fakir was given on 18-2-1971. This was as early as possible after the seizure of the goods. It is seen that the vessel Jalaram Vishwas was intercepted on 16-2-1971 morning and was brought to Veraval at about 12 noon on that day. The calling of the witnesses and the search of the vessel took place during the remaining part of 16-2-1971 when certain goods were seized. The Jalaram Vishwas was searched again on 17-2-1971 and further contraband goods were recovered on that day. Thereafter with the help of two divers 2,000 tolas of gold was seized valued at Rs. 4,40,000/-. It is thus seen that the rummage operations lasted for 12 hours on 16-2-1971 to almost the end of 18-2-1971. It would not therefore be possible the Customs officers to start investigations and record the statement till they had completed the search and the seizure formalities. It is seen that Jalaram Vishwas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the case of Allias v. Collector of Customs, Madras AIR 1970 S.C.C. 1065 and Percy Rustamji Bastha, AIR 1971 S.C. 1087. In addition, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Kollatra Abbas Haji 1984 (15) E.L.T. 129. In that case, the Hon'ble High Court held that the levy of penalty on the basis of the evidence of the co-accused was valid. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, the reliance by the learned advocate of the appellant on the Supreme Court's decision in AIR 1957 S.C. 637 and AIR 1964 S.C. 1184 are of no avail to him as these decisions only caution the court to judge the accomplices' evidence in the light of the case. On the other hand, in the present instance, we have seen that the statements of the crew members were inculpatory and they have been used as evidence not only against them but also against the appellant. When the statements of the accomplices are admissible in a criminal case, there is no reason why they should not be held as valid in the departmental proceedings which require a less degree of proof. In the case of Harun Haji Abdulla AIR 1968 S.C. 832 the Supreme Court has held that ....