PANCHDEO SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS , M/s. Panchdeo Singh filed this appeal against the order -in -original passed by the Commissioner of Custom vide which a penalty of Rs. one lakh was imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 26 -3 -1998, the officers of the Custom Deptt. found a truck bearing No. UP -80/G/9378 standing on the road in front of a petrol pump. On suspicion, search was made and five packets containing raw -silk yarn of third country origin concealed under loose PVC scrap was recovered. The raw -silk yarn was taken into possession. During the search of the truck, a visiting card having telephone number of the appellant was also recovered. The appellant was summoned by the Customs officials, but he did not appear. Thereafter, his business premises was visited by the Custom Officers. The elder brother of the appellant, Shri Pappu Singh disclosed that the appellant had gone out for some work and the appellant was dealing in sale and purchase of raw silk yarn of third country origin. Some slips and cash book, showing details of sale and purchase of silk yarn were also recovered from the business premises of the appellant. After adjudication, the adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. one lakh on the appellant. The contention of the appellant is that the penalty was imposed on the appellant only on the basis of assumption and statement of his brother Shri Pappu Singh which was recorded under duress to implicate the appellant.

(3.) THE contention of the appellant is that he has no connection with the seized yarn. The only evidence against the appellant is the recovery of his visiting card. The recovery of the visiting card is not an evidence to implicate the appellant. The contention of the appellant also is that some other visiting cards, belonging to other persons, were also recovered, but no action was taken against them. In respect of the statement of his brother, Shri Pappu Singh, the contention of the appellant is that the statement was recorded under threat and duress. Therefore, this statement was not a voluntary statement.