I.D. VOHRA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case of seizure of gold jewellery, diamond dust etc. valued at around Rs. 12,00,000/- from a passenger Shri Arif Vohra. Subsequent investigations revealed that the ticket for Shri Arif Vohra was booked by Shri Iqbal, this was stated by Shri Jayesh Patel of M/s. World Wide Overseas Pvt. Ltd. who had booked the ticket; Shri Arif Vohra the passenger stated that ticket was bought for him by Shri Iqbal Bhai. Further, it was also noticed that 26 calls were made by the passenger to the Mobile No. 9825026408 which according to the records was issued to a person by name Usmanbhai Abdulbhai Vohra at the residential address of the present appellant Shri Iqbalbhai Daudbhai Vohra. It was also found that Shri Y.R. Iyer, Air Customs, Superintendent had made 240 calls to this number. Accordinlgy, the department took a stand that the telephone belongs to Shri Iqbalbhai Daudbhai Vohra and it was he who had assured the passenger to go abroad and smuggle goods. On this ground a penalty of Rs. 10,000/ - has been imposed.

(2.) THE appellant himself appeared for hearing and submitted that the whole case of the department is made out since the telephone was issued to a person who had given the residential address which actually belonged to him. He submits that the telephone was not in his name. He had never given any statement regarding his complicity in the smuggling activity. He did not own a car whereas as per the records Iqbalbhai owned Uno car. Further, he also submits that none of the persons concerned have given his name as the person. There can be several persons who have the name as Iqbal and this does not prove that he was the person. According to him the fact that the telephone was in the name of Usmanbhai Abdualbhai, there is no record or evidence to show that any of the persons involved had identified him as the person who had undertaken any of the activities such as purchasing ticket, speaking over phone etc, Shri Jayesh Patel had simply mentioned Iqbal and no surname was given; further the passengers statement was recorded immediately after seizure and he had given the name as Iqbalbhai Vallibhai whereas his name was Iqbalbhai Daudbhai Vohra. Shri Y.R. Iyer, Superintendent who had spoken on 240 occasions has also not specifically him as the person. Therefore, he submits that department has failed to establish that he is the person who had obtained the ticket for the passenger and the person who was contacted by the passenger on 26 occasions and by the Air Customs Superintendent on 240 occasions.

(3.) THE learned DR on the other hand submits that the appellant has not been able to show how telephone came to be issued with his residence as the address of the person. Further, he also submits that all the persons have given the name of the person concerned as Iqbalbhai and appellant has not been able to show any other person with the name Iqbalbhai. It cannot be a coincidence that two persons namely the passenger and the M.D. of the booking agency stated that it was Shri Iqbalbhai who booked the ticket even though the telephone was in the name of Usmanbhai.