DEVI DAYAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER challenges legality or order passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue on a revision petition filed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (in short the 'Commissioner') whereby it was held that present petitioner was involved as abettor to smuggling activities.

(2.) FACTUAL position giving rise to the present writ petition, in a nutshell, is as follows. Additional Commissioner ordered absolute confiscation of 35 gold biscuits with foreign markings of 24 carat purity weighing 4081 gms. and valued at Rs. 15,38,537/ - and Rs. 19,18,070/ - on the IV and MV rates respectively brought by one Harpal Singh by concealing the articles in specially made cavities of a Jacket which he wore beneath the shirt and banian. The thread and the Jacket used for concealing the gold and the Maruti Car No. DL -3C -D -5875 brought by one Mahesh Chauhan and Rajesh Sahdev to the IGI Airport to carry the gold were also directed to be confiscated. Penalty of Rs. 1.25 lakhs was imposed on Harpal Singh and penalty of Rs. 50,000/ - each was imposed on Mahesh Chauhan, S.P. Singh and Devi Dayal, the present petitioner. According to adjudicating authority Mahesh Chauhan alias Bunty and S.P. Singh were receivers/beneficiaries of the smuggled gold and petitioner Devi Dayal, a Customs officer, was the facilitator. An appeal was filed by the petitioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) came to the conclusion that petitioner had not abetted smuggling of the impugned gold. Commissioner disagreed with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s view and the revision application was filed. The Revisional Authority found that on the basis of materials on record the conclusions that petitioner was a facilitator were in order. However, the penalty was reduced from Rs. 50,000/ - to Rs. 25,000/ -.

(3.) IN support of the writ petition it is submitted that without a chance for cross -examination, statements of certain persons have been utilised and thereby principles of natural justice have been violated. It is fairly accepted by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that, though the statements of the persons were brought to the notice of the petitioner during the proceedings, there was no specific request made for cross -examination of these persons. It is his case that, though such a request was not made, it was incumbent upon the authorities to produce the persons for cross -examination. Additionally, it is submitted that the materials on which the conclusions have been arrived at are inadequate to link the petitioner with the alleged occurrence. Learned Counsel for the respondents however supported the order impugned.