1999 (8) TMI 384

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s, Bangalore ordering confiscation of 50 cartons containing building bricks covered with newspaper and coir having markings No. C-1 to C-50 which have no commercial value under Section 115 (D) of Customs Act, 1964. He imposed penalties on the-above appellants as follows :- (a)  Pushparaj Shetty - 1 lakh (b)  S.D. Kini - Rs. 1 lakh (c)  K.R. Shenoy - Rs. 1 lakh (d)  P.M. Nayak - Rs. 3 lakhs. P.M. Nayak's reference application has not been listed today. 2.  The Tribunal after a detailed consideration of the case, upheld the allegation brought forth by the department and also the imposition of penalties on the above named appellants. The basic charges made out against these appellants was that an expo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Venkataraman was handed over to Pushparaj Shetty on account of freight charges etc. Mr. Pushparaj Shetty also in his statement admitted about the facts. The appellants were all heard in great detail and after due consideration of their pleas, a detailed order was passed by the Tribunal upholding the charges and imposition of penalties. 3.  By these reference applications, appellants seek reference on following questions as noted in para 8 :- (a) Whether the Tribunal was right at law to hold that the statement was voluntary, when the same was retracted and the rectraction was upheld in S.D. Kini's case in the High Court of Karnataka. S.D. Kini is also a co-appellant in this case. (b) Whether Tribunal was correct in re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....here necessary is annexed) be forwarded to the High Court with the Statement of the case. 4.  We have heard ld. Advocate Shri V. Lakshminarayana and Shri S. Sankaravadivelu, ld. DR. 5.  Ld. Advocate submits that the case was argued by two other Advocates. He submits that in terms of the Tribunal's order the points raised pertaining to denial of principles of natural justice does not appear to have been taken up by the Counsels. However, he was instructed by the appellants to state that the non supply of documents was a crucial point which was required to have been considered. He also submits that the appellants had retracated the statements and on the basis of such retracted statements, the Advisory Board had discharged them....