2003 (12) TMI 471 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of Indian Currency - Sale proceeds of smuggled gold - Penalty - Statement of co-accused

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of Indian Currency under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Confiscation of Indian Currency under Section 121:
The judgment revolves around the confiscation of Indian Currency amounting to Rs. 1.55 lakhs under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962. The officers recovered contraband gold from a ship's cabin used by E. Abdul Rehman, concealed in a sofa not declared during a crew property test. Abdul Rehman stated that the gold was meant for delivery to an individual, later identified as the appellant, for a specified payment per biscuit. A search of the appellant's residence led to the recovery of the confiscated currency. The tribunal concluded that the seized amount was not sale proceeds of smuggled gold but likely payment for carrying and delivering the gold, thus setting aside the confiscation under Section 121.

Imposition of Penalty under Section 112:
Regarding the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, the tribunal found the appellant denying involvement with the carrier of smuggled gold. Despite the appellant's denial, Abdul Rehman's detailed description of the appellant's home interiors raised doubts. The tribunal rejected the appellant's explanation of the currency found at his residence. Upholding the penalty, the tribunal noted that Abdul Rehman's statement, corroborated by disclosed materials and the description of the appellant's private residence, implicated the appellant as a recipient of smuggled gold. As the appellant was found to be connected with smuggled gold, the penalty was deemed appropriate and upheld.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal set aside the confiscation of the Indian Currency amounting to Rs. 1.55 lakhs under Section 121 of the Customs Act, while upholding the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed under Section 112. The appellant's denial of involvement with the carrier of smuggled gold was not accepted, and the tribunal relied on corroborated evidence to establish the appellant's connection to the smuggled gold, leading to the imposition of the penalty.