2007 (2) TMI 466 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of DRI officers to issue show cause notice.
2. Timeliness and validity of the order extending the period for issuing show cause notice.
3. Legality of confiscation of currencies and imposition of penalties.
4. Entitlement to redemption of confiscated currencies.

Summary:

1. Competence of DRI Officers to Issue Show Cause Notice:
The appellant challenged the competence of the DRI officers to issue the show cause notice, citing a CESTAT decision. However, the Tribunal found this plea unsustainable due to Notification No. 17/2002-Cus. (N.T.), dated 7-3-2002, which vested the powers of officers of Customs on DRI officers of equivalent rank.

2. Timeliness and Validity of the Order Extending the Period for Issuing Show Cause Notice:
The appellant argued that the order extending the time limit for issuing the show cause notice was communicated beyond six months of the date of seizure, thus violating judicial precedents. However, the Tribunal noted that the show cause notice for extending the time had been issued within six months in this case. The Tribunal relied on the Apex Court's observation in Harbans Lal v. Collector of C.E., Chandigarh, which held that the period laid down in Section 110(2) affects only the seizure of the goods and not the validity of the notice u/s 124.

3. Legality of Confiscation of Currencies and Imposition of Penalties:
The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of currencies and the penalty imposed on the appellant, citing the Apex Court's decision that the proceedings u/s 124 survive even if the seized goods had been returned or were returnable to their owner for non-issue of notice in time. The Tribunal found that the appellant had associated with the offense of smuggling Indian and foreign currencies, justifying the absolute confiscation u/s 113.

4. Entitlement to Redemption of Confiscated Currencies:
The appellant sought redemption of currencies based on previous Tribunal orders. However, the Tribunal observed that the facts of those cases were not identical to the present case. The appellant had disowned the goods, and the owner of the currencies never surfaced. The Tribunal concluded that offering an option of redemption was not obligatory u/s 125 of the Customs Act, given the circumstances and the nature of the offense. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of currencies and the penalties imposed, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the competence of DRI officers, the timeliness of the order extending the period for issuing the show cause notice, and the entitlement to redemption of the confiscated currencies.