Page 219 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] IN RE : MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA 753

Revision Petition No. 380/15-A/B/2015-R.A. filed by the Department together and de-
cide both the petitions”. Accordingly Revision Application No. 380/15-A/B/2015-
R.A., dated 19-5-2015 filed by the Commissioner of Customs (P), Jodhpur is be-
ing decided along with Revision Application No. 375/37/B/2017-RA, dated 3-
11-2017 filed by the PAX pending with Government.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the PAX arrived at Jaipur Airport
on 23-9-2012 from Dubai. A seizure of seventy gold biscuits weighing 8164.80
grams valued at Rs. 2,51,89,735/-, UAE Dirham AED 1,05,410, INR Rs. 20,000/-
was made under Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962 and seizure for an amount of
Rs. 12 lacs in lieu of demand draft issued by Al Fardan Exchange along with con-
cealment material (six plastic packets and spectacles case) valued at Rs. 2200/-
was made out under Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962. A statement dated 23-9-
2012 under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 was tendered by the PAX wherein
he confessed that he had brought the impugned gold bars to India to earn profit
and did not declare the impugned gold bars and other things viz. Forex, Demand
draft, Indian currency, etc. in the customs declaration form submitted to the cus-
toms authorities at the airport. The PAX was arrested under Section 104 of the
Customs Act, 1962 on 23-9-2012 and subsequently released on bail on 24-9-2012
on furnishing a security of Rs. 84 Lacs by way of fixed deposit and two surety
bonds for Rs. 20 lacs each by two guarantors. The PAX sent a retraction letter
dated 27-9-2012 to the Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur and retracted from his
statement dated 23-9-2012 recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962
stating that he was forced to sign the said statement.
Two opportunities were given to the PAX subsequently on 11-10-2012
and 29-1-2013 and statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were
duly recorded on both these dates. Another retraction letter dated 30-1-2013 was
sent to the Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur by the PAX regarding his statement
tendered on 29-1-2013 under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962. The PAX did not
challenge the statement dated 11-10-2012. Regarding the statement recorded un-
der Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 on 29-1-2013, he submitted that he was
forcefully made to sign his earlier statement recorded on 23-9-2012 by adding the
word seen . He sent a retraction letter dated 27-9-2012 to this effect narrating the
same.
He wrote a letter dated 5-10-2012 to the Director, Airports Authority of
India (AAI), Jaipur requesting for the CCTV footage of the Airport for the period
23-9-2012 04:30 AM to 24-9-2012 04.00 PM. The request was denied under Section
8(g) & (h) of Right to Information Act, 2005 by the Public Relations Officer, AAI
vide his Letter No. JP/AAI/APD/RTI/17/2012/18016, dated 16-10-2012 on the
grounds of security.
A Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 18-3-2013 was issued to the PAX by
the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur. In response to SCN the PAX
asked for cross-examination of the witnesses viz. Sh. Balram Tiwari and Sh.
Rameshwar Prasad Dubey, Customs Officers on duty at X-ray machine and red
channel counter on 23-9-2012. The customs officer on duty on 23-9-2012 manning
the x-ray machine, Sh. S.S. Arya, Inspector, was cross-examined by the PAX on
12-8-2013. The other customs officer deployed at the red channel on 23-9-2012
and the two witnesses could not be cross-examined since the request for cross-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  219