TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1257
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... further investigations were conducted. 3. As the shipping bill in respect of the said container was filed by one Shri Yousef Moideen, Proprietor of M/s.Suweihan Exporting, Desamangalam, Trichur, he was summoned by the officers for recording of his statement. As per Shri Yousef Moideen, IE code was taken by him in the name of M/s. Suweihan Exporting as per the instructions of one Shri Musthafa whom he met while working in Gulf. The said IE code was obtained with an intention to import readymade wooden doors. As the import of wooden doors was an expensive affair, the same could not be done. Shri Musthafa introduced him to one Shri Karunakaran @ Kannan hailing from Chennai who wanted to export goods on behalf of M/s. Suweihan Exporting. Shri Kannan offered him to pay an amount of Rs. 15000/- to Rs. 25000/- for each consignment of red sanders which would be exported clandestinely. For the said purpose, he leased a godown in Pollachi for storing coir pith and there he met Shri Jayan, an agent in Cochin and Shri Prakash @ Senthil. As regards the present consignment, he gave the details of various meetings and how the consignment of red sanders was misdeclared as that of coir pith. 4. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ony Morris. Based upon the above, proceedings were initiated, inter alia, against the appellant for imposition of penalty upon him. During the course of adjudication, the appellant through its advocate, contended that Shri Shafeek is not at all connected with the smuggling activities of red sander logs inasmuch as he was staying in Dubai for the last 20 years and rarely visited India; that he last visited India in July 2012 for a period of about 7 days whereas the offence had actually taken place in November 2012; that he has got nothing to do with the red sander logs seized by the Revenue; that the proposal to impose penalty upon him is only on the basis of the retracted statement of Shri Antony Morris which cannot be held to be a sufficient evidence against him, in the absence of any corroborative material; that none of the accused in their statements had assigned any role to the appellant except Shri Antony Morris; that sharing of the calls between two persons cannot be construed as corroboration or proved involvement of the appellant in the alleged offence; that even the statement of Shri Antony Morris is self-contradictory inasmuch as at one place he deposed that he does not k....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....K. Kunhammed had entrusted the gold biscuits in a foreign country, Doha that would not be an offence coming within the mischief of the Customs Act, 1962. The provisions of the Act extend only to the whole of India and not beyond India. Apart from it, the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Cochin also has no jurisdiction under law to try a person in respect of something which was committed beyond India and in a foreign country which will not come within the mischief of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. 9.2. Apart from above, he submits that there is a specific provision in Section 1(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 specifically providing that the same applies to all citizens of India outside India and to branches and agencies outside India of companies or bodies corporate, registered or incorporated in India. Similar provisions are also available in Sections 3 and 4 of IPC whereas no such provision exists in the Customs Act, 1962. In the absence of any identical provisions in the Customs Act, the same cannot be invoked against a resident of a foreign country, even though an Indian. 9.3. As regards merits of the case, he submits that entire case of the Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his said statement, has nowhere attributed any role to Shri Shafeek about the alleged attempt of export of red sanders. The statement simplicitor reveals that he was introduced to Shri Kannan by Shri Moideen of Hongkong, who in turn was introduced through Shri Shafeek. It is a fact on record that Shri Moideen of Hongkong was untraced by the Customs authorities. In any case, we find that introduction of one person to another person who is subsequently found involved in illegal activities cannot be considered to be an offence so as to impose penalty upon him under the provisions of the Customs Act. 11.2. In any case, the statement of Shri Antony Morris does not inspire confidence inasmuch as at one place he had deposed that he knew Shri Shafeek for the last 6 years but does not know his address and at the other place he had deposed that the papers for clearance of red sanders were sent to the address of Shri Shafeek. The said part of the statement is admittedly a self-contradictory statement and cannot be adopted as a reason for penalizing the appellant. 11.3. Otherwise also, we find that the entire case of the Revenue rests upon the sole retracted statement of Shri Antony Morris. ....