GHEWAR CHAND Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are against Order -in -Appeal. No. 1/96, dated 10 -2 -1996 and Order -in -Appeal No. 2/96, dated 10 -2 -1996. As the issue in these two are common, therefore the matter is heard together and is being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) HEARD Shri K.A. Jabbar, learned Advocate for the appellants and Smt. Aruna N. Gupta, learned JDR.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate submits that on 19 -8 -1993 the Police apprehended the appellant Shri S. Satyanandam and recovered 9 Gold biscuits with Foreign markings. He was arrested and remanded to custody. The Customs Officers applied to the Remand Court and then took over the goods for proceedings under Customs Act, 1962 as per the Court's Order. The statement of Shri Satyanandam was recorded on 25 -8 -1993 under the Customs Act wherein he deposed that he was working as a Clerk with the appellant Shri Ghewarchand and that he was acting according to the instructions of Shri Ghewarchand. Learned Advocate submitted that on 20 -9 -1993 the said Shri Ghewarchand wrote to the Customs Officers enclosing Sale Receipt dated 13 -8 -1993 by Abdul Razak of Madras for 9 Gold biscuits as also a baggage duty receipt No. 17508, dated 16 -8 -1993 made out by Customs in favour of said Abdul Razak. In this letter, Ghewarchand claimed ownership, and on verification, the said receipt was found to be genuine. Summons to Abdul Razak were returned and Customs did not record any statement of Ghewarchand as he was not available though he was summoned. Therefore Show cause notice dated 8 -2 -1994 was issued. In reply, Ghewarchand asked for cross -examination of Police Officer who had apprehended Satyanandam as well as the Customs Officer. However the cross -examination was not given and Order -in -Original dated 13 -3 -1995 was issued absolutely confiscating the said gold biscuits and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/ - on Ghewarchand and Rs. 5,000/ - on Satyanandam. The Orders -in -Appeal confirm the confiscation of Gold and retain the penalty on Satyanandam but set aside the penalty of Ghewarchand on the grounds that the duty receipt was not accompanying the consignment and that the ownership of the gold was claimed much later by Ghewarchand.