TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 477
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has been restored. BRIEF FACTS 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of specific information that a passenger Sh. Rajdeep Chawla was arriving on Flight No. AI-315 with two handbags and was supposedly carrying 7500 pieces of Memory Cards and 9 Watches, a team of Officers was deputed to track his movement. It was observed that just before the immigration clearance in front of immigration counters, he gave Hong Kong Duty Free Shop polythene bag to one Veerandra Singh, who was wearing immigration uniform. Veerandra Singh was then working as JIO-II, AFRRO Office (Immigration) at IGI Airport. After collecting the bag, he went into the room of Shift Incharge. While coming out of the room, he was intercepted by an Air Customs Officer (Preventive). At that time, he was carrying a black laptop size bag. Thereafter, petitioner was taken into a room along with both Wing Incharge, AFRRO Arrival Office Mr. S. Bagchi and Mrs. Archana Andley. During the search of the Shift Incharge Office, a Hong Kong Duty Free polythene containing Chivas Regal bottle packing was recovered from the lower drawer of the table kept in the room. Examination of the said polythene bag resulted in the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here is no evidence against the petitioner except his involuntary statement to establish that Rajdeep Chawla had handed over the Hong Kong Duty Free polythene bag to him. Not a single Officer, who was deputed to track the movement of the petitioner, has been examined under Section 108 of the Customs Act. No footage of the surveillance cameras affixed in the arrival hall has been seized or placed on record. There is not even a single witness who had seen the petitioner keeping Duty Free bag in the room of the Shift Incharge. No statement of any person was recorded to find out that any Officer had entered the room of the Shift Incharge who had seen any bag lying in the lower drawer of the table. It is also submitted that there is no corroboration of the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act with the call records. The Commissioner (Appeals) had clearly noticed serious flaws in the investigation and the imperfectness of the evidence, and therefore, the Order-in-Appeal passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) deserves to be restored by setting aside the impugned order. 5. Supporting the order passed in revision, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, 1962 read with para 2.20 of Section 3 of Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14, and Section (7) of Foreign Trade (D&R) Act, 1992; that Shri Veerendra Singh acted for a petty consideration and aided and abetted to smuggle the impugned goods by the above acts of omission and commission in relation to the seized goods with intent to evade payment of Customs duty; that the Immigration officer Shri Veerendra Singh under the Instructions from Shri Baljeet Singh, and in connivance with Shri Rajdeep Chawla, rendered the seized Impugned goods i.e. 9500 pieces of SD 2GB memory cards, valued at Rs. 15,01,000/- liable to confiscation under Section 111(d), (i), (I) & (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and rendered himself liable to penal action under Section 112 of the Act, ibid. 8. Government notes that the applicant's contentions as mentioned in para 7 supra and the fact that Shri Rajdeep Chawla, carrier pax, handed over impugned goods to Shri Veerendra Singh and recovery from his possession as mentioned in para 6 supra are clearly established. In this regard, Government observes that in the voluntary statements dated 27.01.2011 and 28.01.2011 of Shri Veerendra Singh recorded under Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962 is emphasized: 10.1 The Apex Court in the case of Naresh Kumar Sukhwani Vs Union of India 1996 (83) ELT 285(SC) has held that statement made under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is a material piece of evidence collected by the Customs Officials. That material incriminates the Petitioner inculpating him in the contravention of provisions of the Customs Act. Therefore, the statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be used as substantive evidence in connecting the applicant with the act of contravention. 10.2 In the case Collector of Customs, Madras and Ors Vs D. Bhoormull- 1983(13) ELT 1546(S.C.) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Department was not required to prove its case with mathematical precision. The whole circumstances of the case appearing in the case records as well as other documents are to be evaluated and necessary inferences are to be drawn from these facts as otherwise it would be impossible to prove everything in a direct way. 10.3 Kanwarjeet Singh & Ors Vs Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh 1990 (47) ELT 695 (Tri) wherein it is held that strict ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat he did all this at the instance of one "Chacha". In his further statement dated 28.01.2011, he recognized Rajdeep Chawla as the same person who gave him Hong Kong Duty Free Shop poly bag from which memory cards were recovered from the room of Wing Incharge, AFRRO, Arrival Office. Rajdeep Chawla also stated in his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act that on 26.01.2011, he landed at IGI Airport and started waiting near the escalator in the Arrival Hall and at the instance of one Mukesh, he handed over the packet to an Officer wearing immigration uniform. He identified the petitioner Veerendra Singh as the person whom he handed over the Hong Kong Duty Free Shop polythene bag in which the memory cards were kept. Even though, two Wing Incharges, in their statements, stated that the entry of Veerendra Singh in the room of Incharge with polythene bag was not within their knowledge, but as stated by them, the recovery of memory cards was effected at the instance of the petitioner in the manner stated above. The statements were made by the petitioner on 27.01.2011 and 28.01.2011 but the same were retracted after a delay of four days on 01.02.2011. It is a settled law that the....