TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 175
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R-37AK-2073) Rs.1.00 Lakh 4. C-71/2012 Shri Santokh Singh (Driver of vehicle No. HR-37AK-2073) Rs.5.00 Lakhs 5. C-76/2012 Smt.Rajwinder Kaur (Owner of vehicle No. MP-09KD-8067) Rs.5.00 Lakhs 6. C-77/2012 Shri Balbeer Singh Butter (Owner of vehicle No. MH-26H-5567) Rs.5.00 Lakhs 7. C-78/2012 Shri Indrajeet Singh Butter (Owner of truck No.MH-20AT-3067) Rs.5.00 Lakhs 8. C-79/2012 Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta (Owner of vehicle No. BR-06G-3650) Rs.5.00 Lakhs 9. C-80/2012 Shri Sohal Singh (Driver/owner of vehicle No. MH-26H-7612) Rs.10.00 Lakhs 10. C-81/2012 Shri Dhiraj Kumar Singh (Owner of Mobile No.9939984288) Rs.1.00 Lakh All the vehicles belonging to the above owners were also confiscated under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 and option to redeem was extended to the owners by imposing a redemption fine of around 50% of the seizure value of the vehicles. 2. Shri N.K.Chowdhury (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the Appellants made the following arguments:- (i) That 13 vehicles were intercepted by the officers of DRI, Lucknow on 01.10.2009, at Sakri-Bahera Road based on specifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posed upon the drivers and owners are excessive. That due to seizure/confiscation of the vehicles all the appellants have literary come to the roads as their source of livelihood is not available. That even the seizure value of vehicles taken do not indicate as to how the value of the goods were arrived at. (x) Learned Advocate relied upon the following case laws in support of his argument that foreign origin of the seized goods is not established and statements of co-accused cannot be relied upon.:- (1) Aakash Enterprise [2006 (205) ELT 23 (Bom.)] (2) Ritu Kumar [2006 (202) ELT 754 (Cal.)] (3) Laxmi Narayan Somani [2003 (156) ELT 131 (Tri.-Kolkata)] (4) Dungarmal Mohata [2006 (200) ELT 522 (Cal.)] (5) Dinanath Maurya [2001 (131) ELT 203 (Tri.-Kolkata)] (6) Sunderlal [2004 (165) ELT 250 (Tri.-Kolkata) (7) Dwarika Pd.Agarwal [2012 (275) ELT 0183 (Pat.)] (8) V.Muniyandi [2004 (167) ELT 215 (Tri.-Chennai)] (9) A.N.Shukla [2005 (187) ELT 269 (Tri-Del.)] (10) Amrit Foods [2005 (190) ELT 433 (SC)] (11) Mohatesham Mohd. Ismail [(2007) 8 Supreme Court cases 254] (12) Francis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of the Appellants in the smuggling activities. That Shri Mukhtiyar Singh also confessed to have earlier carried such consignments from Nepal. (iv) Learned AR made the Bench go through paras 1.28 to 1.31 of the Order-in-Original dated 18.01.2012 to argue that Shri Waryam Singh and other owners did not respond to summons but preferred to file a petition in Patna High Court in 2009. That only on the directions of Economic Offenses Court, Mazaffarpur the owners came forward to give statements. That as per fifth bullet point of para 1.31 of Order-in-Original dated 18.01.2012 Shri Waryam Singh was asked as to why he did not enquire above his truck and file FIR for the period of interception by DRI on 01.10.2009 to third week of December, 2009. That he only replied that he neither enquired nor filed any FIR. (v) That Waryam Singh confirmed to be knowing Shri Parameshwar Singh, Indrajeet Singh, Bulbir Singh and Sohail Singh, drivers of other trucks seized in the convoy of thirteen vehicles. That he also expressed ignorance about the fake registration number plates and loading of betel nuts by drivers. (vi) That nobody has come forward to claim ownership of 1,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... registration No.HR-37ak 2084), Shri Santokh Singh (Driver of truck bearing registration No.HR-37AK-2073) and Shri Karnail Singh (Khalasi of truck bearing Registration No.HR-37AK-2073), all other occupants of the other vehicles managed to escape leaving their vehicles abandoned on the roadside. 4.1 Shri Mukhtiyar Singh in his statement dated 02.10.2009 confirmed to be having two bills separately showing 16,200 kgs. of Betel Nuts and 16,120 kgs. of "Makai". It was also confessed that Betel Nuts were loaded in his truck at Tharhi Bazar (Nepal) in a godown situated behind hotel of Arjun Master, which is 100-150 meters away from border. It was further confirmed by Shri Mukhtiyar Singh in his statement dated 02.10.2009 that he and other drivers were introduced to one Shri Babloo Singh whose mobile number was 9939984288 and all instructions were received over the mobile and that extra registration number plates recovered from his truck were being used to conceal the identity of truck as and when required. Shri Mukhtiyar Singh also confirmed that on earlier occasions also he has carried Betel Nuts from Nepal and every time two sets of documents were provided, one set where consignments....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt that no one came forward to claim the ownership of the betel nut as well as of garlic at the time of detention or thereafter, apparently out of fear of penal action - betel nut and garlic being smuggled into India. The loading of betel nut and its movement during night hours further raises doubt about its licit procurement, possession and transportation. The physical appearance of entire seized lot i.e. bigger size and spherical shape in contrast to Indian betel nut and garlic which is smaller in size and conical in shape also indicates foreign origin of the betel nut. Also, Madhubani District of Bihar is not known for growing, trading and marketing of betel nuts or Garlic. Moreover, District Madhubani is not directly connected with any area known for growing, trading or marketing of Betel nuts or Garlic. It is also seen that whole act of carriage and transportation was a well planned act of smuggling. The fake addresses of consignee, consigner, transport company, fake registration no. of truck fitted at the time of transportation, wrong addresses registration of trucks (which could be ascertained in few cases after lot of hard work and follow up action), unauthorized registrati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail vs. Spl Director, Enforcement Directorate & Another (supra), which reads as follows:- "20. We may, however, notice that recently in Francis Stanly v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram this Court has emphasized that confession only if found to be voluntary and free from pressure, can be accepted. A confession purported to have been made before an authority would require a closer scrutiny. It is furthermore now well settled that the court must seek corroboration of the purported confession from independent sources." 4.6.1 Learned Advocate of the Appellants failed to notice that in Para-19 of the same case law Apex Court observed it to be a case of retraction of a confession statement. In the present case there are no such retractions. Appellants never asked for cross-examination of witnesses. None of the persons came forward to claim the ownership of seized goods of more than Rs. 2.00 Crore in value. The act of running away of Drivers from the place of interception is not disputed by Appellants. It cannot be imagined that the drivers who ran away would not have informed the masters that goods/trucks have been detained....