TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (10) TMI 168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... then produced by the appellant herein from the inside pocket of his trouser. The same were examined by the Officers in the presence of two independent witnesses and were found to contain 15 numbers of gold biscuits. As no legal document in support of the acquisition and possession of the said gold biscuits was produced by the appellant herein, the Officers on a reasonable suspicion that the gold biscuits in question were smuggled ones, brought the appellant herein along with two independent witnesses to the Office of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence for completion of legal formalities. In the Office of D.R.I., the appellant herein tendered a statement giving details of his smuggled activities in the presence of the said two independent witnesses. In his inculpatory statement, the appellant had disclosed that the gold biscuits in question were handed over to him by one Shri Seibell of Dawki, Shillong with a direction to hand over the same to Shri Rara of M/s. Rara Brothers; that he had full knowledge of the contents of the packet handed over to him; that he had on previous occasions also, handed over the smuggled gold biscuits to Shri Mahabir Prasad Rara in the presence of h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....awki and he was supposed to deliver the same to one Shri Mahabir Prasad Rara of Fancy Bazar, Gauhati. The said biscuits could not be delivered as the same were seized by the D.R.I. Officers before the actual handing over of the same. 6. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Shillong after considering the evidence on record and the pleas made by the appellant ordered for absolute confiscation of the 15 biscuits in question under the provisions of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 60,000.00 on the appellant, Shri Brosswell Myllemngap under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 7. The Ambassador Car being used by the appellant was also ordered to be confiscated with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of a redemption fine of sum of Rs. 40,000.00. This order of the Commissioner is impugned before me. 8. Appearing on behalf of the appellant, learned Consultant, Shri P.R. Biswas submits that the appellant is not denying the recovery of the 15 gold biscuits from his person. However, he submits that the appellant was not aware of the contents of the packet which was handed over by one Shri Seibell of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officers concerned. Shri Kumar also submits that the statements had been written by the appellant in his own hand in the presence of two independent witnesses and there is no evidence of any pressure or coercion by the Officers upon him. The statements are required to be considered as voluntary statements. There is no immediate retraction of the same also. Apart from making the statements on 16-3-1995 and 17-3-1995 i.e. the date of seizure and the day thereafter, he also tendered a state- ment on 29-3-1995, reiterating/corroborating his earlier statement. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the statements are not voluntary statements. 10. As regards the non-traceability of Shri Seibell, Shri Kumar, learned SDR submits that the Officers have made their best efforts to locate the said person. However, if the appellant was so keen to save his skin, he should have produced the said person before the Officers or at least, could have helped the Officers to locate the said person. Non-traceability of the said person is indicative of fact that there is no such person actually by name of Shri Seibell and a reasonable conclusion flows from this that the biscuits in question ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt had also maintained the same stand as had been made by him in his earlier statement and there was no deviation from his earlier stand. The appellant had talked about the details of the receipt of the biscuits in question in the statement of 16-3-1995 and further travelling from Shillong to Gauhati for the purpose of handing over of the gold biscuits to one Shri Rara. He had, in this statement, also disclosed about the previous activities on three different occasions, of carrying of gold in question, giving minute details of such activities. These statements have not at all been retracted by the appellants at any point of time before the reply to show cause notice. There is also no other evidence or any sign of coercion or any pressure put by the Officers for recording all these statements. The reliance placed by the learned SDR on the Honourable Supreme Court's Judgment in the case of Surjeet Singh Chhabra (supra) is well made inasmuch as the Honourable Apex Court had held in that Judgment that the confession made by the appellant before the Customs Officers had to be treated as a true and voluntary confession, even though there was a retraction within a period of six days in th....