MOHD. HANIF Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these three stay petitions arises from the same order -in -original dated 31 -1 -1995, passed by the Collector of Customs (Prev.), Lucknow. By this order he has ordered for absolute confiscation of seized goods valued at Rs. 22,40,500/ - under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962. He has imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.5 lacs on Shri Mohd. Hanif and Shri Anees and Rs. 50,000/ - on Shri Abdul Rauf under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

(2.) THE allegations against these appellants are that the officers on receipt of information searched the residence of Shri Anees in presence of Shri Abdul Rauf brother of Anees on dated 31 -7 -1991 at about 02.00 hours and recovered goods of foreign origin valued at Rs. 22,40,500/ -. The details of which have been shown in the recovered memo dated 31 -7 -1991. Abdul Rauf could not produce any document showing the legal import of the recovered goods. On interrogation in his statement dated 31 -7 -1991 he stated that the recovered goods were smuggled from Krishna Nagar, Nepal during the night and had been kept in the house from where it was recovered and seized. He said to have stated that the seized goods were owned by Shri Hanif. On receiving the smuggled goods these are sent for further disposal to Kanpur and Bombay. The house from where the goods were seized belongs to his brother Anees. The work of smuggling the goods into India and their further disposal is done by Haneef and the sale is done by Anees. Abdul Rauf further stated that he gets Rs. 40/ - per day for guarding the goods. On these facts proceedings were initiated against these three persons under relevant Sections of Customs Act, 1962 and Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. At the time of seizure, Hanif and Anees were not available. Summons were issued to both of them. Mohd. Hanif did not appear on the ground of illness while summons could not be served on Anis, hence it was pasted at his door. Both the persons could not be presented for recording their statements hence show cause notice was issued on all the three of them. The show cause notice was served on Abdul Rauf while the summon was not served on the other two persons as it was undelivered with the remarks 'that they were not found at their residence' and in case of Anees it was also informed that he lives somewhere in Bombay. The Customs House Bombay could not furnish the correct address of Anees. The advocate of Rauf sent a letter stating that reply could not be made as the records were not available with Additional Collector at Lucknow. As there was no reply from any one of them, the Collector proceeded and adjudicated the case and pass the impugned orders.

(3.) WE have heard the Learned Advocates Shri Bipin Garg and Shri Vinay Garg for the Appellants and the Learned SDR, Shri P.N. Das for the Revenue.