TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (11) TMI 212
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nter-connected and since common argument was advanced by the learned Counsels for the appellants all the appeals are consolidated and disposed of by this single order. 3. These appeals are directed against the respective impugned orders of the Additional Collector of Customs, Visakhapatnam levying following penal- ties under the provisions of me Customs Act, 1962 : Sl.No. Name of appellant Penalty levied Under Section 112 CA Under Section 114 CA 1. Peter Daniel 16,000 1,000 2. A.D' Silva 40,000 10/000 3. Babu Rao 12,000 2,000 4. D.R. Fernando 20,000 2,000 5. U.K. Mohammed 20,000 1,000 6. M.L. Brahmanian 2,000 - 7. L.D. Solenki ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7-1986 to 13-7-1986 second statements were recorded under Section 107 which were inculpatory in nature. It was contended that before a Gazetted officer when appellants gave exculpatory statement there was no need nor any justification for the authorities to record again statements from the appellants at a later point of time between 9-7-1986 and 13-7-1986 under Section 107 of the Act. The statements were subsequently retracted and therefore do not have evidentiary value in law. The appellants' lawyer sent telegram to the Collector of Customs on 9-7-1986 complaining that the inculpatory statements were brought about by coercion and threat and the authorities had seized the "continuous discharge certificate" (CDC) of the appellants which is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the Seafarers Hostel for more than 30 days i.e. 30-6-1986 to 5-8-1986. Placing the appellants in such wrong confinement the authorities recorded the second statements against their wish and the statements are therefore not voluntary and true. The learned Counsel referred to the cross-examination of Shri V.V. Saikumar, Preventive Officer on 21-5-1987 and urged that to a question as to whether crew members "were under your surveillance both at the ship and at Seafarers' Hostel, Vizag," it was answered that "there was a guard on the ship". The learned Counsel also referred to the cross-examination of Shri U. Maridas, Preventive Officer dated 21-5-1987 and urged that he has admitted that "he did not know as to who had directed the crew membe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... voluntary and there is no evidence of wrongful confinement. The learned D.R. further pointed out that after telegraphic retraction by the appellants' Counsel Shri Ranganathan, the appellants later gave inculpatory statements admitting of the complicity and involvement. In regard to plea of wrongful confinement the learned D.R. submitted that the Shipping Corporation of India never made any complaint that their employees i.e. the appellants were kept in wrongful confinement against their wish in the Seafarers Hostel. 8. We have considered the submissions made before us. The fact of seizure of a very substantial quantity of contraband goods valued at more than Rs. 1.19 crores is not disputed or disputable either on the evidence available ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s I and II of the mahazar in token of seeing them". It is not disputed that the appellants gave inculpatory statements when they were examined under Section 107 of the Act. The mere fact that the appellants' earlier statements recorded under Section 108 of the Act were exculpatory would not ipso facto render the subsequent statements either inadmissible or any the less in evidentiary value. We have gone through the statements from the appellants under Section 107 of the Act. Statement of Fernando recorded under Sections 107 & 108 and the inculpatory statements of other appellants recorded under Section 107, in our view are voluntary and would merit acceptance. The appellants in the cross-examination of the officers who recorded the state....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asi-judicial Tribunal unless it is expressly made applicable." It applies only to judicial proceedings in or before any Criminal Court including those mentioned thereunder under Section 1 of the Evidence Act." We agree with the contention on behalf of the appellants that the Department cannot rely upon the statement of Arun Richard given on 2-7-1986 since admittedly the same was not referred to in the show cause notice nor copy given to the appellants. In our view, exclusion of that statement from the consideration would not otherwise affect the merits of the Department's case in bringing home the charge against the appellants. 9. We find that the materials available on record for levying penalty under Section 114 of the Act are not adeq....