2004 (3) TMI 554 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interception of foreign and Indian currency, confiscation, retracted confessional statement, lack of corroborative evidence, legal procurement of foreign currency, disposal under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.

Interception of Currency and Confiscation:
The appellant was intercepted carrying foreign and Indian currency, which was not declared, leading to confiscation. The Commissioner noted discrepancies in the case, highlighting that the original authority based its decision solely on a confessional statement without further investigation into the source of the currency. The retracted confessional statement, allegedly obtained under duress, was deemed unreliable without corroborative evidence. The lack of effort by the department to verify the facts stated by the appellant during custody raised doubts about the confiscation of the Indian currency. The Commissioner directed the release of the Indian currency, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence and proper investigation.

Legal Procurement of Foreign Currency:
Regarding the foreign currency, the department failed to prove it was proceeds from smuggled goods. The Commissioner rejected the confessional statement as evidence due to its retraction, highlighting the absence of proof linking the currency to smuggling. The appellant claimed the foreign currency was obtained from NRIs, supported by an affidavit, but lacked substantial evidence. Documents showing currency exchange before seizure were deemed insufficient to establish the appellant's connection to the funds. The Commissioner emphasized the requirement to establish legal procurement of foreign currency beyond reasonable doubt and directed disposal under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act or FEMA, suggesting further investigation if needed.

Final Decision:
After reviewing the issues and the orders-in-appeal, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner's decision. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner's findings and directives. Additionally, an appeal filed by another party was dismissed for lack of standing as no adverse order was issued against them. The judgment upheld the importance of thorough investigation, corroborative evidence, and adherence to relevant regulations in cases involving intercepted currency and confiscation.