2003 (3) TMI 580 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order-in-appeal affirming order-in-original regarding confiscation of seized goods and currency.
2. Ownership and possession of the room where seized goods were found.
3. Confiscation of Indian currency recovered from appellant's house.
4. Validity of confessional statement obtained under coercion.

Analysis:

Issue 1 - Appeal against Confiscation Order:
The appeal was filed challenging the order-in-appeal affirming the confiscation of seized goods and currency. The Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the absolute confiscation of the seized goods and currency, leading to the appellant contesting the confiscation of the Indian currency specifically.

Issue 2 - Ownership and Possession of Seized Goods:
The seized goods were recovered from a room adjacent to the appellant's residence. However, there was no conclusive evidence to establish that the room belonged to the appellant or that he had any connection with the seized goods. The appellant consistently denied any association with the room or the goods found there. Lack of inquiry into ownership and absence of corroborating witnesses raised doubts about the appellant's ownership of the seized goods.

Issue 3 - Confiscation of Indian Currency:
The Indian currency recovered from the appellant's house was confiscated under Section 121 of the Act. The appellant contested this confiscation, arguing that there was no concrete evidence linking the currency to the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. The absence of statements from buyers, lack of documented sales transactions, and doubts regarding the authenticity of the confessional statement raised questions about the legality of confiscating the currency.

Issue 4 - Validity of Confessional Statement:
The appellant claimed that his confessional statement was obtained under coercion and torture, as evidenced by injuries sustained during the search. Medical examination results did not support the department's explanation for the injuries. The appellant's retraction of the statement further cast doubt on its authenticity. The tribunal found no compelling reason to disregard the appellant's claim of coercion, especially given the lack of corroborating evidence.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order confiscating the Indian currency and directing its release to the appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of concrete evidence, ownership verification, and the legality of confessional statements in cases involving confiscation of seized goods and currency.