TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (3) TMI 133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or of Customs, Air Intelligence Unit to the petitioner amongst others. The main noticees Mr. Lakhani as well as the petitioner and other co-noticees were called upon to show cause as to why the gold seized from Mr. Lakhani should be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and why penal action should not be taken against all of them for conspiring with Mr. Lakhani to smuggle the seized goods. 3.On 6th July, 1992 the petitioner filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice, inter alia, contending that the petitioner was neither connected with the goods seized nor his physical description tallied with the description given by Mr. Lakhani; that is how he denied his involvement in the alleged act of smuggling alleged in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e aforesaid order of Respondent No. 2, the reviewing authority is a subject matter of challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Submissions : 9.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the adjudicating authority as well as the Joint Secretary to the Government of India committed serious error in holding that the petitioner was liable to be penalised under the Customs Act for the alleged involvement of the petitioner in the act of smuggling alleged to have been indulged by one Mr. Lakhani. According to him, the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) required to be upheld being a well reasoned and speaking order appreciating the facts in its right perspective with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the possibility of his involvement in the current act of smuggling of gold bars cannot be ruled out as such in his submission the view taken by the reviewing authority is reasonable and possible view. The said view does not need interference at the hands of this Court in this writ jurisdiction since this Court is not a Court of appeal. Consideration : 12.Having heard rival parties, perusal of the memorandum issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act goes to show that during the course of interrogation of Mr. Mirza Lakhani on 21st December, 1991, had stated that he had brought gold bars on 5 times earlier too. While giving account of earlier 5 occasions he stated that on 2 occasions gold bars of 10 tolas each were handed over to one....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch came to be set aside. 13.On review, after hearing the parties, the respondent No. 2 observed as under : "………While it is true that there is no direct evidence against the respondent regarding his alleged involvement in the smuggling of 20 gold bars by Shri Lakhani, this cannot be a ground for acquitting him as smuggling is clandestine activity and one has to by and large rely on circumstantial evidence…...." (Emphasis supplied) In our view, the above approach is absolutely impermissible in law. The chain of circumstances needs to be established to reach to a person involved in the act of smuggling. No such unbroken chain has been proved or established. No opportunity was given to the petitioner in respect of his allege....