Full Judgment
1.3 As a follow up action, the residence of the appellant was also searched and some more liquor was found. He also could not produce evidence of possession of the said liquor. Accordingly, the liquor found from the residence of the appellant was also seized. A statement was also recorded from Peeru Lal who confessed that he gave the goods including the liquor to the said three persons who were the occupants of the jeep intercepted by the Customs authorities for the purpose of taking them to Pakistan. None of the statements were retracted by any of the persons, namely, Adam Khan, Maghe Khan, Lakhe Khan and Peeru Lal. No reply to the show cause notice dated 18-6-1983 and its corrigendum dated 8-1-1993 was received from the appellant. Personal hearing for 17-3-1993 was fixed in the case but the letter addressed to the appellant intimating this date of personal hearing was returned by the postal authorities with the remarks in Hindi as follows :- "On frequent going to addressee's place the addressee is not available." The adjudicating authority noting the aforesaid remarks further observe that despite clear directions of High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 470/1994 vide decision dated 22-5-1995 1995 (78) E.L.T. 657 (Raj.), Shri Peeru Lal did not submit his reply to the show cause notice within the stipulated time of one month fixed by the Honourable High Court. Letters of intimation for personal hearing had been returned undelivered by the postal authorities. On this basis the adjudicating authority held that Shri Peeru Lal had nothing to say in the matter.
1.4 After a detailed discussion of the evidence on record, the adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that the liquor in question was attempted to be exported to Pakistan and was, therefore, liable to confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act. On the basis of the statements of the three occupants in the Jonga jeep and on the confessional statement of the appellant and on other evidence on record, he found that Peeru Lal was concerned in the said attempt to export the goods. Accordingly, he has imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on Peeru Lal, the appellant herein apart from the imposition of penalty on the three occupants of jeep.
1.5 On appeal, the appellant herein did not succeed. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal.
2.1 The appellant herein desires the matter to be decided on the basis of available records on merits. Accordingly, I have heard the learned JDR, Shri T.A. Arunachalam in support of the Revenue's case. I have also gone through the appeal memo of the appellant herein. First point taken by him is regarding violation of the principle of natural justice. I do not find any substance in the said plea in view of the aforesaid observations of the adjudicating authority. The next point taken by the appellant is that the seizure of the goods has been made only 20 kms. away from Jodhpur and goods were going to Phalodi. I observe that no such case was made out by the appellant at the time of adjudication of the case. Therefore, these pleas of fact now taken by him before the lower appellate authority were rightly discarded by the said authority. The adjudication was made by the Assistant Commissioner on the basis of the confessional statement of the appellant along with the statements of the three occupants of the jeep. The four statements corroborate one another which clearly indicate that the liquor was attempted to be exported to Pakistan. In the face of the evidence on record and in the absence of any reply from the appellant, the conclusion arrived at by the original authority as also by the lower appellate authority cannot be challenged at this stage. Statements also bring out the fact that the appellant was concerned in attempting to export the goods. Penalty has also, therefore, been rightly imposed on the appellant.
3.1 In view of the foregoing discussion. I do not find any substance in the appeal before me.