TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (2) TMI 184
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a side'. While the matador van WBV 7739 was being driven by Md. Nazir and having two other occupants S/Shri Chitto Khan and Nityananda Mukherjee the other matador van WBV 8068 was driven by Md. Akbar and similarly having two occupants S/Shri Shanti Sarkar and Manindra Thakur. As the matador vans were loaded with packages and the same appeared to be containing smuggled goods as per information, the matador vans along with their occupants were escorted to Customs House, where the packages were examined and both the matador vans were searched in presence of the Drivers and occupants and two independent witnesses. 3. On examination of the packages carried by the matador vans Nos. WBV 7739 & WBV 8068 white chemical powder contained in 16 pkgs. and ready made garments in 24 pkgs. were recovered. Neither the drivers nor the occupants could produce any documents in support of legal importation/acquisition and/or possession of the goods. The goods were seized on the reasonable belief that the same were smuggled and therefore liable to confiscation under Customs Act, '62. Search of Matodor vans led to recovery of certain documents, along with blue books, insurance certificates, ignition k....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hemical powder and readymade garments seized from two matador vans. He also stated that S/Shri Nityananda Mukherjee and Md. Akbar had involved him in, this case as they were asked to do so by Sri Shanti Sarkar and the show cause notice was served on him on the basis of the statement given by Sri Shanti Sarkar. According to him Sri Shanti Sarkar has falsely implicated him with the offence which he had not committed. He pointed out that Sri Shanti Sarkar's statement was false since during the period from 16-6-1983 to 25-6-1983 he was undergoing treatment in Sub-divisional Hospital Chandernagore for peptic ulcer and to that effect he submitted a copy of discharge certificate issued from the said hospital. As such he stated that his presence at Ghusighata on the night of 21-6-1983 was impossible as falsely alleged by S/Sri Shanti Sarkar, Nityananda Mukherjee and Md. Akbar. He denied the allegations that the telephone numbers of his house and business premises were given by him to Sri Sarkar who as a broker somehow managed to know the telephone numbers. He also categorically denied that he engaged Sri Shanti Sarkar for carrying smuggled goods from Bangladesh border to Calcutta and paid ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6-1983. It was therefore contended that the reliance placed by the learned Collector on the report made by the SDMO is in accordance with law. 9. Sri S.K. Roy, learned Barrister had also contended that cross-examination, as sought by the appellant, to cross-examine Sri Nityananda Mukherjee was not granted to the appellant. Hence he stated that the principles of natural justice are violated. But the learned JDR stated that it is not necessary that in all cases such a cross-examination should be granted. In the departmental adjudication proceedings if the copies of statements are furnished to the appellant, then that will comply with the principles of natural justice. 10. We have heard both the sides at length. The point that arises for our determination is, whether the imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellant holding that he is concerned with the contraband goods in question is in accordance with law. The learned Collector has placed reliance on the confessional statements made by Sri Sarkar as well as Sri Nityananda Mukherjee. Both these persons have stated that the appellant came to the spot where the goods were loaded in the truck and he was concerned in ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ow that he was admitted in the hospital on 16-6-1983 and, therefore, he was not present at the place where the goods were loaded. The certificate produced by him showed that he was admitted to the hospital at Chandernagore during the relevant period. But the learned Collector stated in the order that on inquiry made with the hospital staff it was found that no person by appellant's name was admitted to the hospital on 16-6-1983. Even though the appellant produced the medical certificate during the course of hearing, the inquiry made subsequently cannot be used against the appellant unless the report received through such inquiry was made available to the appellant to give him an opportunity to rebut the same. In this connection the learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court report in AIR 1963 SC page 375 (State of Mysore v. Shibabasuppa). It was held in that decision that in quasi-judicial proceedings the authorities are not bound by the strict rules of evidence and procedure and they can get information through their own sources which could be acted upon provided the result of the inquiry on which they are acting was made available to the accused person so ....