2001 (5) TMI 794 - AT - Customs

Confiscation and penalty - Confiscation of foreign exchange - Confiscation of Indian currency

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods and currency, levy of penalty.
2. Retraction of confessional statement.
3. Seizure of foreign exchange and Indian currency.
4. Allegations of dealing in goods of foreign origin.
5. Arguments regarding the seized goods and currency.
6. Corroboration of statements by involved parties.
7. Confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 121 of the Customs Act.
8. Reduction of penalty imposed.

Confiscation of Goods and Currency, Levy of Penalty:
The case involved the interception and search of individuals resulting in the seizure of foreign exchange, Indian currency, and goods of foreign origin. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs issued a show cause notice alleging liability to confiscate the goods and currency, imposing a penalty on one of the individuals. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of certain goods but set aside the confiscation of others, considering the quantities and trade relevance. The confiscation of foreign exchange was upheld under specific sections of the Customs Act, while the penalty imposed was reduced from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 20,000 due to financial difficulties faced by the individual.

Retraction of Confessional Statement:
One individual had initially made a confessional statement which was later retracted, citing coercion and health concerns. The Tribunal considered the retraction but found substantial corroboration of the statement by another involved party. Despite the retraction, the confessional statement was deemed of evidential value, leading to the confiscation of goods and currency based on the corroborative evidence.

Seizure of Foreign Exchange and Indian Currency:
The seizure of foreign exchange and Indian currency from the individuals led to allegations of dealing in goods of foreign origin. Various statements and claims were made regarding the ownership and purpose of the seized currency. The Tribunal examined the claims and found them illogical and unsupported, upholding the confiscation of the currency under relevant sections of the Customs Act.

Allegations of Dealing in Goods of Foreign Origin:
The involved individuals were alleged to be dealing in goods of foreign origin based on statements and corroborative evidence. Despite attempts to refute the allegations, the Tribunal found sufficient evidence to support the claims of dealing in such goods, contributing to the decision on confiscation and penalties.

Arguments Regarding Seized Goods and Currency:
Legal arguments were presented regarding the seized goods and currency, including claims of ownership, purpose, and trade relevance. The Tribunal carefully considered these arguments but ultimately upheld the confiscation of certain items based on the evidence and provisions of the Customs Act.

Corroboration of Statements by Involved Parties:
The Tribunal noted the corroboration of statements made by the involved parties, strengthening the evidential value of the confessional statement and supporting the decisions on confiscation and penalties based on the corroborative evidence provided.

Confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 121 of the Customs Act:
Confiscation of goods and currency was upheld under specific sections of the Customs Act, considering the circumstances, claims, and evidence presented during the proceedings. The Tribunal analyzed the legality and logic of the claims made, leading to the decisions on confiscation under the relevant sections.

Reduction of Penalty Imposed:
While upholding the propriety of the penalty imposed, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to reduce the quantum of the penalty due to the financial difficulties faced by the individual involved. The reduction from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 20,000 was considered reasonable and justifiable based on the circumstances presented during the proceedings.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, upholding certain confiscations and penalties while setting aside others based on the evidence, statements, and legal arguments presented during the case. The reduction of the penalty imposed reflected a balance between legal obligations and the individual's financial situation, ensuring a fair outcome in light of the complex circumstances surrounding the case.

← Previous Next →