2001 (9) TMI 1058

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....war. 2. The facts giving rise to these appeals may briefly be stated as under :- The Customs Officers of Bareilly Division on 23-8-99 on receipt of a specific information intercepted one Truck No. UP-58-0467 at about 10.00 P.M. near Bareilly, which was being driven at that time by Shri Samshuddin. The other person besides the driver who were on the board in the truck, were Raj Mangal Kunwar, appellant and Mohd. Islam (cleaner). On enquiry all these persons disclosed that they were transporting cardamom into 40 bags of foreign origin. The contents of the goods were also checked and it revealed that each bag contained ten poly-packs of 5 kgs. each of small cardamom totally weighing 20 quintals. The goods were seized. The statement ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nder Section 112(d) of the Customs Act. 5. On the other hand, learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order and argued that there is ample evidence to connect these appellants with the smuggling of the goods and as such the impugned order is perfectly valid. 6. We have heard both sides and gone through the record. 7. From the bare perusal of the impugned order, it is quite evident that the impugned goods consisting of 40 bags of cardamom of foreign origin were recovered on interception of truck No. UP-58-0467 on 23-8-99 by the Customs Officers, near Bareilly where they were holding a picket. Raj Mangal Kunwar, appellant was found travelling in the truck at that time. Shamshuddin was driver of the t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and as such, the same could not be used against Rajesh Kumar Bubna, appellant. But, in our view, this contention of the counsel is wholly mis-conceived and cannot be accepted. The subsequent denial made by Raj Mangal Kunwar, appellant regarding his own involvement, and of Rajesh Kumar Bubna did not carry any evidentiary value. It was only an after thought with a view to wringle out of the case and as such, the same had been rightly ignored by the Adjudicating Authority. 9. From the evidence on record, the allegations as made out in the show cause notice against both the appellants stand amply proved. The Adjudicating Authority (Commissioner) has recorded in detail, the reasons for holding both the present appellants guilty under Se....