2003 (6) TMI 403 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Imposition of penalty and confiscation of currency.

Imposition of Penalty:
The appellant contested an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000 and confiscating currency recovered from his possession. The appellant was intercepted at a railway station with Indian currency amounting to Rs. 7,19,300, claimed to be the sale proceeds of smuggled gold. Subsequent investigations revealed conflicting statements regarding the origin of the money, with individuals denying involvement in the gold transactions. The adjudicating authority exonerated certain individuals, including those allegedly involved in the gold transactions, due to lack of evidence. The Tribunal found that the penalty imposed on the appellant was unjustifiable since there was insufficient evidence linking the confiscated currency to the alleged gold sales. The appellant's claim for the currency was deemed unsustainable as he admitted it belonged to another individual, Hanif Mohd., for whom he was merely a carrier. The Tribunal referenced legal precedents to support its decision, emphasizing that the appellant could not claim ownership of the seized currency and that only Hanif Mohd., the alleged owner, could do so. Consequently, the penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed on the appellant was set aside.

Confiscation of Currency:
Regarding the confiscated currency, the Tribunal ruled that the appellant, being a carrier for Hanif Mohd., could not claim ownership of the money. Legal precedents cited by the appellant's counsel were deemed irrelevant as they did not support the appellant's claim to the money. The Tribunal emphasized that since the appellant admitted the money did not belong to him but to Hanif Mohd., the claim for release of the confiscated currency could only be made by Hanif Mohd. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the currency, stating that the appellant, as a carrier, had no legal basis to claim ownership. The decision highlighted that the appellant had been given the benefit of doubt regarding the penalty, but the ownership of the confiscated currency rested with Hanif Mohd. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of, setting aside the penalty but maintaining the confiscation of the currency.