COMMR. OF CUSTOMS Vs. RAJ KUMAR JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order dated 25th February, 2002 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata, thereby disposing of appeals preferred by various persons against the order of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal by which he confiscated the metal scraps involved in three different seizure cases with an option to the owner of the same to redeem those on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000/ -. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) further held that on such redemption, the owners were liable to pay Customs -duty leviable on the goods and in addition to that, three trucks used for transportation of metal scraps had also been confiscated with an option to the owners to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 15,000/ - each. Personal penalties of various amounts ranging from Rs. 5,000/ - to Rs. 1,00,000/ - have also been imposed upon the different respondents.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to filing of the present reference application may be summed up thus :

(3.) MR Mukherjee, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has vigorously contended before us that the learned Tribunal totally overlooked the fact that although the onus was initially upon the Revenue, the same was discharged and the respondents could not produce any material in support of their lawful possession of the goods in question. Mr. Mukherjee further contends that the learned Tribunal took no notice of various statements made under Section 108 of the Customs Act by the respondents. Mr. Mukherjee further contends that although those were subsequently retracted, no material was produced before the Tribunal showing that those statements were really procured by practising coercion inducement and/or fraud. Mr Mukherjee, thus, contends that there is substantial question of law involved in this reference as the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the fact of discharge of burden by the Revenue and at the same time, failed to take into consideration the statements made under Section 108 of the Act which can be legitimately used against the respondents.