MARTIN HANS PETER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Martin Hans Peter, the petitioner, holder of a German passport arrived at Calcutta airport from Bangkok on 6-8-86. He had a confirmed ticket for journey between Bangkok-Calcutta-Bombay and Zurich. The Customs Officers at Calcutta airport kept a secret watch on his movements. The petitioner became conscious of being suspected by the Customs officers. He became further apprehensive when two of his associates were subjected to thorough search by the Customs officers. Out of fright during the course of interrogation, the petitioner suddenly desired to go back to Bangkok and, if not possible, to Kathmandu without baggage being examined by the Customs at Calcutta airport.

(2.) The Customs officers in order to be on the safe side recorded the statements of Mrs. Tanima Datta, the I.A.A.I. lady receptionist and Miss Denaz Bhesania, ground hostess of That Airlines, who disclosed that the petitioner, in order to avoid Customs check at Calcutta airport requested for help from Miss Denaz Bhesania to send him to Bombay as a transit passenger. The witnesses did not agree to his request and advised him to observe the normal facilities for clearance of his baggage through immigration and customs. The petitioner again made futile attempts to go back to Bangkok. In the beginning, the petitioner attempted to mislead by slating that he only had gold jewellery in his possession. His baggage and person were then searched resulting in the recovery of 26 pieces, circular gold tablets which collectively weighed 3742.4 grams and were valued at Rs. 8,08,421. These gold pieces were found inside his unregistered accompanied baggage. Since the petitioner failed to produce any valid document/permit in support of the legal importation of the gold tablets, the same were seized by the Customs Officers on the reasonable belief that the same were smuggled and were liable to confiscation under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 read with Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1963.

(3.) In his statement made on the same day, the petitioner admitted the recovery and seizure of the aforesaid gold from his possession. He, however, contended that the said gold was not for landing in India but was to be taken to Zurich via Bombay and as such his ticket was booked for Bangkok- Calcutta-Bombay-Zurich. He further disclosed that two of his associates who were examined by the Customs officers at Calcutta airport had been asked .by two Nepalese nationals at Bangkok for carrying gold into India. He, in turn, entered into a conspiracy with the abovesaid two associates to decamp with the gold secretly to Zurich. As regards the special cavities inside the Suit-case and the leather jacket from where the gold was recovered, the petitioner disclosed that these had been made by him for carrying gold for smuggling. He, however, submitted that this was his first offence and expressed regrets in committing such offence without knowing any customs rules and regulations. The statements of other connected witnesses were also recorded before the proposal for taking action under the COFEPOSA Act was initiated.