CC Vs. SHRI ASHUTOSH DUBEY, BALAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are five appeals of the department against the Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur in adjudication of a show -cause notice dated 15.10.97. The appellant is represented by the DR. M/s. Balaji enterprises (respondent in Appeal No. C/613/2002) and shri Umesh Chand Gupta (in Appeal No. C/616/2002) were represented by Sr. Advocate, Shri M. Chandrasekharan. None of the respondents in the remaining appeals was present, nor represented despite notice.

(2.) On the basis of intelligence, Customs Officers of Jodhpur raided the residential -cum -business premises of Shri D.R. Jain (respondent and two independent Panch Witnesses and recovered 21 FM (foreign marked) gold biscuits weighing 2449.944 gms., valued at Rs. 11,84,550/ -, concealed under a bed -sheet along with two packets of cellophane tape and 'Laser' brand blades. Two other persons viz. Sh. Ashutosh Dudey (respondent in C/612/2002) and Sh. Uchab Pradhan were also present on the spot, and their personal search was also conducted, which resulted in the recovery of Delhi -to -Jodhpur railway tickets from Ashutosh Dubey and one packet of red chilli powder from Uchab pradhan and two white 'langots' from each of them. D.R. Jain told the officers that the gold biscuits belonged to him and had been brought from Delhi by Dubey and Pradhan corroborated this statement and told the officers that they had brought respectively 10 and 11FM gold biscuits from delhi and had used their 'langots' for concealing the gold. But none of them produced any evidence of legal acquisition/possession of the gold biscuits to the satisfaction of the officers. The officers of Customs believed that the gold biscuits had been brought through illegal means in contravention of Section 7 (c) and 11 of the Customs Act and were liable to confiscation under section 111 of the Act, and hence seized the goods under section 110 of the Act. Statements of D R Jain and Ashutosh Dubey were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs act on the same day (23.4.97). Their further statements were recorded on 24.4.97 also. A statement of Uchab Pradhan was also recorded on 24.4.97. Jain, Dubey and Pradhan were arrested on 24.4.97 and produced before the economic Offences Court at Jaipur on 25.4.97 where they were placed under judicial custody. In support of his Bail application before the District and Sessions Court at jaipur, D.R. Jain produced photocopies of Bill No.106 dated 10.4.97 of M/s. Ess Vee Jewellers, karol Bagh, New Delhi issued in favour of M/s. Balaji Enterprises and 3 challans bearing Nos. 14,15 and 16 all dated 22.4.97 showing purchase of the seized gold. In their letters dated 25.4.97, Dubey and Pradhan submitted that they had produced the above challans to the officers of Customs at the time of raid of the premises of D.R. Jain. D.R. Jain also submitted to the same effect in his letter dated 26.4.97. All the three, in their letters, stated that their earlier statements and signatures on Panchanama had been taken under force and duress. Umesh Chand Gupta (U.C. Gupta) in his letter dated 26.4.97 submitted that he was the proprietor of balaji Enterprises, New Delhi and purchased 107 gold Ten Tola bars from M/s. Ess Vee Jewellers, karol Bagh, New Delhi and that out of the said 107 gold bars, 21 were sent to D.R. Jain through his employees, Ashutosh Dubey and Uchab Pradhan. On 29.4.97, the advocates of R.R. Jain, Ashutosh Dubey and Uchab Pradhan submitted copies of the following documents: -

(3.) On the basis of the results of investigations, the Commissioner of Customs issued the show -cause notice to the appellants proposing to confiscate the 21 gold biscuits and other seized goods respectively under Section 111(d) and Section 118 of the Customs Act and to impose penalties on them under Section 112 of the Act. An order dated 22.5.98 was passed by the Commissioner in adjudication of the show -cause notice, confiscating the seized goods and imposing penalties on all the notices. The appeals filed with this Tribunal against that order of the Commissioner resulted in a remand of the case to the Commissioner. The order impugned in the present appeals was passed pursuant to the remand order.