AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 273
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e are that on 16.04.2021 on a specific information, rummaging of flight No 6E-8451 from Sharjah to Amritsar was conducted by the Customs officers. During rummaging one heavy object wrapped in black cloth was found on the back pocket of Seat No. 1E (I.e. front pocket of Seat No. 2E) of the said flight. On unwrapping/opening of the same, it was found to be an elbow sleeve which was further wrapped in another elbow sleeve. On opening of the second elbow sleeve, four Kadas and two chains, yelloish in colour, appearing to be gold were found. Then all the passengers sitting on the seats 1D, 1E, 1F, 2D, 2E and 2F were intercepted at the green channel of Customs. When enquired upon, two passengers namely Sh. Parvesh Joshi and Sh. Narinder Kumar Jos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he packing material i.e. two black colour elbow sleeves used to conceal the gold objects and placed in the aircraft were also liable for confiscation under Section 118 and 119 of the Customs Act, 1962 and accordingly, the same were also seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 vide Recovery-cum- Seizure Memo dated 17.04.2021. 3. Thereafter, statements of two passengers i.e Sh. Parvesh Joshi and Sh. Narinder Kumar Joshi were recorded and after the completion of the investigation, a show cause notice dated 05.10.2021 was issued to both the passengers who retracted from their statements and subsequently filed the Criminal Writ Petition CRM-M-34363-2021 under Article 226-227 of the Constitution of India in the nature of mandamus befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....India. He further submits that the charge of abetment is a very serious charge and has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt whereas in the present case, the Department has not been able to prove the abetment on the part of the appellant. He further submits that the entire case is based on oral evidence and has not been corroborated by other evidence and the Joint Commissioner has failed to follow the mandate of Section 138 and has not provided the opportunity of cross-examination to the appellant. He further submits that the facts of the case do not prove the offence which is liable to penalty under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: Commissioner of Ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herein is half of the quantity which is involved in the present case. He also submits that it is not only the statement of these two carriers on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed rather the statement of these two carriers have been corroborated by independent evidence which clearly proves that the appellant was the mastermind in the entire process of smuggling and has rightly been penalized under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 7. I have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the material placed on record. In the submissions, the learned Counsel for the appellant has mainly referred the statements made by both the passengers i.e. Sh. Parvesh Joshi and Sh. Narinder Kumar Joshi whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iers and their stay in the hotel was borne by the appellant as stated by these two carriers in their statements. 8. Further, the argument of the learned Counsel that these two passengers who have made statements before the Department were never allowed to be cross-examined by the appellant. This argument does not have force as the appellant has not appeared before the Customs Officer in spite of repeated summons to him. Further, the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the entire case has been made on the basis of oral statements of these two passengers and simply on the basis of these statements, penalty cannot be imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. This submission also d....