1. Confiscation of gold and electronics under FERA and Customs Duty Act — challenge to the confiscation order and denial of cross-examination of witnesses. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1744
1996(8) Supreme 374
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
Surjeet Singh Chhabra -Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14028 of 1996
Decided on 25-10-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : Harjinder Singh and R.N. Joshi, Advocates.
Important Points
Confessions made to Customs officials are binding admissions, even if retracted, as they are not police officers. Therefore, denying the right to cross-examine witnesses does not violate natural justice. Additionally, gold converted into jewelry for personal use is not exempt from confiscation under the Customs Duty Act.
Subject
Customs and Excise - Confiscation of Goods
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.25
CUSTOMS ACT: S.111
CUSTOMS DUTY ACT: .
EVIDENCE ACT: S.25
FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION ACT: S.63
CUSTOMS ACT: S.111
CUSTOMS DUTY ACT: .
EVIDENCE ACT: S.25
FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION ACT: S.63
Headnote
(i) FERA & Customs Duty Act-Order of confiscation-Challenged on ground that no opportunity was given to petitioner to cross examine panch witnesses and Seizing Officer-Opportunity required was as regards the place at which recovery was made, whether at conveyor belt or at green channel-Confession by petitioner however did not render such confiscation violative of principle of natural justice-Even confession retracted was an admission binding upon petitioner and that Custom Officials were not police officers. (Para 3)
(ii) FERA & Customs Duty Act-Order of confiscation of gold-Challenged on ground that under Rules jewellery was exempted article and Kara being symbol of religious wear was exempt from the Act-Confession by petitioner that he had purchased gold and converted as Kara and brought as such-He was not entitled to benefit of exemption. (Para 4)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- customs and trade law
-
evidence
-
admissions and confessions
- retracted confessions (Para 3)
-
admissions and confessions
Table of Contents
2. Right to cross-examine seizing officers and witnesses to satisfy natural justice — claim of exemption for religious jewellery (Kara). (Para 2 , 4 )
3. Confession to importing gold binds the petitioner; Customs officials are not police officers, making retracted confessions admissible as admissions. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. A retracted confession before Customs officials constitutes an admission that binds the petitioner, obviating the need for cross-examination of witnesses. (Para 3 )
5. Special Leave Petition dismissed. (Para 5 )
6. Does the failure to allow cross-examination of witnesses violate natural justice when a confession has been made?
No. Where the petitioner has confessed to the contravention, the confession binds them, and the failure to provide an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses regarding the recovery does not violate the principles of natural justice. (Para 3 )
7. Is a retracted confession before Customs officials binding on the accused?
Yes. Because Customs officials are not police officers, a confession made to them, even if subsequently retracted, is considered an admission that binds the petitioner. (Para 3 )
8. Is gold converted into a religious symbol (Kara) exempt from confiscation under the Act?
Not if the gold was purchased and converted into the symbol specifically to bring it into the country in contravention of the law; such circumstances disqualify the petitioner from the benefit of exemption. (Para 4 )
ORDER
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. We do not think that it is a case warranting interference for the reason that the appellate authority had initially referred back the matter to the primary authority to reconsider the matter in the light of the directions issued in that order. After reconsideration, the confiscation order has been passed in respect of the gold and in respect of the two items, i.e., FAX machine and video camera and compounding fee was ordered. On appeal, it was confirmed and on revision it was also confirmed. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court in the impugned order dated January 30, 1996 summarily dismissed the writ petition. Thus, this special leave petition.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to cross-examine the Panch witnesses and the Seizing Officer for the goods seized in contravention of the FERA & CUSTOMS DUTY ACT and that the opportunity has not been given. Therefore, it is violative of natural justice.
3. It is true that the petitioner had confessed that he purchased the gold and had brought it. He admitted that he purchased the gold and converted it as a Kara. In this situation, bringing the gold without permission of the authority is in contravention of the CUSTOMS DUTY ACT and also FERA. When the petitioner seeks for cross-examination of the witnesses who have said that the recovery was made from the petitioner, necessarily an opportunity requires to be given for the cross-examination of the witnesses as regards the place at which recovery was made. Since the dispute concerns the confiscation of the jewellery, whether at conveyor belt or at the green channel, perhaps the witnesses were required to be called. But in view of confession made by him, it binds him and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case the failure to give him the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses is not violative of principle of natural justice. It is contended that the petitioner had retracted within six days from the confession. Therefore, he is entitled to cross-examine the panch witnesses before the authority takes a decision on proof of the offence. We find no force in this contention. The Customs officials are not police officers. The confession, though retracted, is an admission and binds the petitioner. So there is no need to call panch witnesses for examination and cross-examination by the petitioner.
4. It is contended that under the Rules jewellery is exempted articles. Kara being a symbol of the religious wear by the Sikh community, it is a jewellery exempted from the Act and it cannot be confiscated. In view of the admission that he had purchased gold, converted as Kara and brought as such, he necessarily used it. Therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of exemption. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the authority warranting interference.
5. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.
SLP dismissed.
*******
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India, 1996(8) Supreme 374 : JT 1996(10) SC 239
00023
