ORDER
G.N. Srinivasan, Member (J)
1. This is an appeal against :he decision of the Additional Collector of Customs, Marine & Preventive wing, Bombay, passed on 23-3-1992 whereunder he confiscated two foreign marked silver ingots and silver pellets totally weighing 78.780 kgs and totally valued at Rs. 5,27,826/- and levied a penalty of Rs. 1.00 lac under Section 112 of :he Customs Act.
2. On 31st March, 1991 the preventive staff of the Bombay Customs raided the premises of the appellant and during the course of the search they seized two silver ingots as well as 61 pellets of silver weighing 5.500 kgs, totally weighing 78.780 kgs. On the same day they recorded statement of the appellant is well as another person by name Mohammed Iqbal Shaikh. A further statement was recorded on 1-4-1991 from Mohd. Iqbal Shaikh. On the basis of the show cause notices and personal hearing the adjudicating authority imposed penalties as indicated in the earlier paragraph. Hence the present appeal.
3. The ld. Counsel Shri Arun Mehta, argued that the appeal is in respect if 5.500 kgs of silver pieces. He vehemently argued that there is no evidence in the case regarding foreign marks. It is stated by him that even though in his statement dated 31-3-1991 about the admission of the smuggled nature of the silver, there is no evidence in this case. He also stated that on 4-4-1991 i.e. in the earlier opportunity he had retracted the same. He stated that he knew only Hindi and the statement has been recorded in English. He therefore pleads that Since there is no proper evidence regarding the origin of the silver namely whether it is foreign origin or not, the goods could not be confiscated.
4. As against this the Departmental Representative reiterates the grounds mentioned in the adjudication order.
5. We have considered the rival submissions. On the date of the panchnama namely 31-3-1991 there is a statement of the appellant wherein he had admitted that 61 pieces of silver pellets which were remnance of silver pieces and earlier melted smuggled silver ingots. It is represented before us by the ld. Counsel that on 1-4-1991 he was produced before the Magistrate and he did not retract the said confession. On 4-4-1991 only he retracted the confession. In his retraction letter he specifically stated that he was an illiterate person. It was argued that statement was in English not written by him. If that was the case, we cannot understand then how he could sign the statement in Hindi. During the course of the arguments the ld. Counsel laid stress on the point of cross-examination. We do not find any relevance of this plea. By cross-examining the officer who had recorded the panchnama how will they know about the acquiring of the smuggled goods. We are therefore of the view that the entire plea made by the ld Counsel for the appellant is not at all appealing to us. As far as the burden of proof is concerned, the ld. Counsel’s argument and the facts revealed, we are not satisfied that the burden cast on the appellant under Section 123 of the Customs Act has not been discharged in this case. We are therefore of the view that the entire case has been rightly decided by the lower authority. We therefore feel that no interference is called for.
6. Appeal stands dismissed.