9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Seizure of Indian Currency believed to be sale proceeds of smuggled goods, Confiscation of goods and penalties imposed, Claim for refund of seized Indian Currency, Interpretation of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Summary: Seizure of Indian Currency and Confiscation of Goods: - On 18-12-93, Indian Currency was seized from the appellant's bedroom believed to be sale proceeds of smuggled goods. - Proceedings initiated against appellant's husband for the seizure of ball bearings and Indian Currency. - Original Authority confiscated goods and imposed penalties. - Tribunal set aside confiscation of Indian Currency and other reliefs were extended. - Appellant filed a refund claim for the Indian Currency of Rs. 3,44,000 with interest. - Original Authority held that the refund should be made by appellant's husband. - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Adjudication Order. Interpretation of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act: - Consultant argued that Indian Currency was seized from the appellant's possession and bedroom as per Panchnama. - Husband claimed the seized Currency belonged to the appellant. - Appellant failed to produce documentary evidence to support her claim. - Provisions of Section 110(2) state that goods seized should be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. Decision and Ruling: - Tribunal referred to previous cases where goods were directed to be released to the person from whose possession they were seized. - Panchnama indicated that the Currency was seized from the appellant's possession. - Husband declared no claim on the amount, stating it belonged to the appellant. - Commissioner (Appeals) noted that appellant's claim was an afterthought without basis. - Tribunal ruled to release the amount to the appellant as per Section 110(2). - Impugned order was set aside, directing the release of the amount to the appellant. - Appellant's appeal was allowed with consequential relief, and the issue of interest payment was to be decided by the Original Authority. (Order dictated & pronounced in open Court on 21-5-2009)
|
