TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 823
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocket of his shirt. A statement of Shri V. Haris was recorded on 18-8-2001 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, wherein he stated inter alia that he had bought the gold biscuits from Mumbai for one Chalad Nazer by paying foreign currency given by him. He also stated that he had done likewise fifteen times in a period of one year in the past as per directions of the said Nazer and that he got remuneration of Rs. 2500/- per trip. Haris further stated that he was constrained to do so because of his acute financial difficulties. He also disclosed that, on an earlier occasion, he was arrested in connection with seizure of four gold biscuits in Belgaum and detained under COFEPOSA for one year. On 18-8-2001 itself, Haris was arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Kasargod, who remanded him to judicial custody. On 21-8-2001, the residential premises of Shri Chalad Nazer @ P. Abdul Nazer were searched and certain documents seized. In response to summonses issued to Chalad Nazer, Shri P.A. Nazer S/o Late K.T. Mammood, Ponnankil House, Chalad, Alavil P.O., Kannur, appeared before the Superintendent, Special Customs Preventive Division on 22-8-2001 and gave a statement under Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 769207 belonged to him and was installed at his cassette shop at Kannur. He admitted that he had made frequent phone calls to a foreign currency dealer as well as a foreign goods dealer, both stationed at Calicut. He also admitted that he had given Rs. 3 lakhs to Shri V. Haris for purchase of gold. Shri P.M. Abdul Nazer was arrested on 15-10-2001 itself on the basis of reasonable belief that the whole money for the purchase of the 34 foreign gold biscuits seized from his brother-in-law Shri V. Haris was arranged by Shri Abdul Nazer. He was produced before the Judicial Magistrate and was remanded to judicial custody. Eventually he was enlarged on bail. In a subsequent statement given to the Investigating Officer, Shri P.M. Abdul Nazer stated inter alia that money had been arranged by him for Shri V. Haris before his departure to Mumbai. He stated that he had gone to Mumbai several times and had many dealings in foreign goods. He admitted his visit to Mumbai on 10-8-2001 just before the seizure and immediately after the seizure also, though he denied meeting Haris there. 3. The gold biscuits under seizure were, upon detailed examination by the Chemical Examiner, found to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asamy v. C.C., Chennai, 2007 (220) E.L.T. 308 (Tri.-Chennai) (4) Krishna Kumari v. C.C., Chennai, 2008 (229) E.L.T. 222 (Tri.-Chennai) (5) S. Rajagopal v. C.C., Trichy, 2007 (219) E.L.T. 435 (Tri.- Chennai) (6) M. Arumugam v. C.C., Tiruchirapalli, 2007 (220) E.L.T. 311 (Tri.-Chennai) 5.1 Learned counsel also challenged the penalty and its quantum. According to him, the amount of penalty imposed on the appellant is disproportionate to the value of the confiscated goods. In this connection also, he referred to some of the aforesaid decisions. 6. Learned SDR submitted that the gold biscuits under seizure were prohibited goods within the first part of Section 125 of the Customs Act as held by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of C.C. v. Uma Shankar Verma, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 322 (Cal.). He further pointed out that, even under the liberalized policy of the Government, there were certain restrictions on import of gold and that such restriction would also amount prohibition for purposes of Section 111 of the Customs Act and, therefore, the absolute confiscation of the gold biscuits in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the money for purchasing the same was supplied by the appellant. When the appellant was confronted with this statement of Haris, he admitted under Section 108 of the Customs Act that he had given Rs. 3 lakhs to his brother-in-law Haris. The appellant further stated that he arranged another sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to be given to Haris through Chalad Nazer. In a subsequent statement, however, the appellant stated that the above amounts were supplied to Haris as required by him (Haris). Nevertheless, from the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act in this case, it is clearly seen that the appellant was in constant telephonic communication with one Shankar of Mumbai around the time when the gold biscuits were collected by Haris at Mumbai and that these goods were supplied to Haris by Shankar. It is also evident that Haris was only a carrier of the contraband. Neither Haris nor the appellant could produce any documentary evidence of licit import/acquisition of the gold biscuits. On the other hand, concealment of the gold biscuits by Haris would ipso facto disclose that the goods with foreign markings were smuggled into India. Nobody has claimed the goods on the strength ....