TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1071
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his statement dated 12.09.2003 given before the officers, sri Mohd. Aziz stated inter-alia, that he had financial problems as his meagre earnings were not sufficient to run his family; that he expressed his problems to one Lateef, whom he knew for the past one year and requested for his help in finding a job in any of Gulf countries; that Lateef proposed to Sri Mohd. Aziz that a free ticket and visa to Dubai would be arranged for him, provided he carries some foreign currency to Dubai and hands over the same to Hafeez (brother of Lateef) there, that he agreed to carry the foreign currency to Dubai in order to get a job in Dubai as promised by Lateef, that on instructions from Lateef, the ticket and visa for his travel were arranged by one Siddique, whom he knew for the last six months; that Lateef and Siddique are in the business of purchase and sale of foreign currency and Siddique and Lateef are doing the said business together; that Lateef asked him to be ready to go o Dubai on 12.09.2003 and gave him a ticket for Dubai on the evening of 11.09.2003; that Lateef and Siddique came to his residence in the early morning of 12.09.2003 and handover the zipper bag containing for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellants had no role to play. (ii) In a statement made before Customs Officer, the appellant Sri Mohd Abdul Qayyum has clearly stated that he does not know who is Mohd. Aziz and is not able to explain the statement given by him and during the cross examination of Shri Mohd. Aziz held before Ld. Commissioner, it transpired that Mohd. Aziz did not meet appellant Mohd. Abdl Qayyum and he simply signed on the documents and photographs produced by the authorities, cross examination of Shri Suresh Kumar Jain also indicates that Shri Jain has identified the photograph of appellant Mohd. Abdul Qayyum as Mr. Mateen and did not recognize Mr. Qayyum who was sitting beside Commissioner during cross examination. (iii) Further, the show cause notice itself states that nothing incriminating was however found in the hard disk recovered from the residence of Qayyuum. Hence, there cannot be any allegation abating the foreign exchange business fraudulently through Shri Mohd. Aziz. (iv) It is also the submission that there is no evidence of any involvement in purchase and transport or any other mode of revenue connection with Mohd. Aziz and attempted export of foreign excha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hri Mohd. Abdul Qayyum and Mohd. Ali Khan Siddique are recorded, they had straightaway denied having known Shri Mohd. Aziz. Secondly, I find that during cross examination conducted of Shri Mohd. Aziz, he flatly denied having known Shri Qayyum and also that of Shri Suresh Kumar Jain which indicated that there is a confusion as to what role Shi Mohd. Abdul Qayyum has played in the entire case. 8. I find that Ld. Departmental representative is relying on the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority from para 19 onwards upto para 22 in the impugned order for holding penalties imposed on these two appellants. I also find that the entire findings of the adjudicating authority is based only on various statements recorded of Traffic Assistant who said that Shri Siddique had arranged tickets for Mohd. Aziz; Managing Director of the Travel Agency confirmed contents of the statement of Traffic Assistant and that he has identified Shri Mir Mohd. Ali Khan alias Siddique and Shri Mohd. Abdul Qayyum from the photographs shown; one Shri M.A. Rehman stated that he got money from his brother from Dubai for the medical treatment of his brother in law and received....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onclusion that they had in fact provided foreign exchange which was sought to be illegally exported and the entire case is built upon the statement of Shri Mohd. Aziz who is co-accused. In my view, the statement of co-accused cannot be solely relied upon unless and until corroborated further by any material facts. This is the ratio of the judgment in the case of Abdul Kadar Gulam Mohd. Mulla Vs. CC, Ahmedabad (supra). The said judgment is reproduced: "The challenge in the present appeal is to personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed upon the appellant in terms of provisions of Section 114 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962. As per the facts on record, one Shri S.H. Ahuja was intercepted by the DRI Officers on 16.05.1996 and three airmail covers were recovered from his possession. The said covers were containing US $ 4200 equivalent to Rs. 1,46,604/-. In his statement recorded before the officers, Shri Ahuja deposed that the said currency was to be sent to one Shri Anilkumar M. Chopra residing in Dubai, as per his instructions. He submitted that the said currency was given t him by Shri Abdl Kadar Gua Mohd. Mulla, the present appellant. When ....