TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (11) TMI 181
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts and an order No. Ref/5 and 6/88-NRB dated 11-3-1988 was passed by the Tribunal rejecting the reference applications as time barred, under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Later on, the applicants filed the civil writ petitions No. Nil of 1988 against the aforesaid order Ref/5 and 6/88-NRB dated 11-3-1988 before the High Court at Allahabad. The said High court vide its order dated 2-8-1988 set aside the aforesaid order dated 11-3-1988 of the Tribunal and directed the Tribunal to decide the reference applications on merits. Accordingly the reference applications have been heard on 18-8-1989. The two applicants have raised the following questions of law as shown against the names indicated below :- Questions raised ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Applicant alone when the goods belonging to others were also present at that time. Sh. Rafiq Ahmed 11. Can the recovery of Indian Currency affected from the others and accepted by the Customs Officer by shown in the name of the applicant under law. -do- 12. Can the recovery of the Indian Currency made from others who affirmed it in their statement be shifted on the applicant. 3.1. DRI Officers, Amritsar searched the Room number 40 of Meghdoot Hotel, Link Road, Amritsar allotted in the name of Rafiq Ahmed, an applicant herein. Shri Rafiq Ahmed was also present at the time of search. He was having 4 bags with him as his baggage. On the search of the bags recovery of 78 rolls of textile fabric (synthetic fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the goods absolutely. He has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on S/Shri Rafiq Ahmed, Mohd. Anees and Mohd. Yameen. On appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) the order of the original authority has been confirmed. 3.2 Pleas made before the Tribunal by the applicants' learned Advocate are also set out below :- "It has been pleaded by the appellants' learned advocate, as had been pleaded before the lower authorities that the said goods belonged to 15 persons, resident of one town known as Kairana, District Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) who arrived from Pakistan on 26-1-1984. They had declared their baggage at the Land Customs Officer Attari Rail Border and were cleared free of Customs duty except a few persons who paid Customs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to the panchnama, Rs. 590/- were recovered from Rafiq Ahmed but according to the statement in cross-examination of the said officer, these were recovered from the person of Mohd. Anees. On enquiry, Mohd. Anees stated that these are the sale proceeds of Almond kernels. Learned advocate has relied upon a decision of South Regional Bench (CEGAT) reported in 1985 ECR 1757 wherein it has been held that a person detained in the Customs House for a considerable spell of time before giving his statement cannot be considered in a state of freedom and the confessional statement would lose all its value and worth." 33. Tribunal's findings on the various pleas made by the learned advocate for the appellant and the learned SDR are given below :....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mohd. Anees was recorded at Meghdoot Hotel itself. Thereafter, they were taken to DRI Office. Reliance placed by the learned advocate on 1985 ECR 1757 is, therefore, not relevant. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is confirmed and the appeals are rejected." 4. Now I deal with the purported questions of law raised by the appellants seriatem. Question No. 1: This question does not raise any question of law. It is based entirely on the appreciation of evidence on record. It is clearly spelt out in the facts of the case that recovery of Rs. 590/- was made and considered as sale proceeds of almond kernels which had been sold by his brother Anees Mohd. the applicant herein and handed over t....