1985 (6) TMI 195 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Confiscation of currency under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962
- Validity of inculpatory statement recorded from the appellant
- Alleged defects in the show cause notice
- Request for remand of the appeal for re-adjudication

Confiscation under Section 121:
The judgment deals with the confiscation of a sum of Rs. 31,000 under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant claimed that since he did not sell any contraband goods, the sale proceeds should not be liable for confiscation. However, the tribunal held that the sale proceeds of smuggled goods are indeed liable for confiscation under Section 121. The appellant admitted that the seized amount represented the sale proceeds of contraband goods, which he claimed were entrusted to him by others, indicating his knowledge of the illegal nature of the funds.

Validity of Inculpatory Statement:
The appellant argued that his inculpatory statement, recorded on 29-12-1981, was retracted on 22-1-1982, and therefore should not be relied upon. However, the tribunal found that the appellant did not offer a satisfactory explanation for the belated retraction. The statement was considered voluntary and true, as it was in the appellant's handwriting. Additionally, the statement was corroborated by another individual, R. Subramani, who admitted to handing over a portion of the seized amount to the appellant.

Defects in Show Cause Notice:
The appellant contended that the show cause notice was defective, but the tribunal disagreed, stating that the notice adequately set out all relevant facts against the appellant. It was clarified that the person from whom the sale proceeds of smuggled goods are recovered need not be the one who effected the sales, as per Section 121 of the Act.

Request for Remand:
The appellant sought a remand for re-adjudication, citing his waiver of cross-examination and alleged misapprehension about the adjudicating authority's decision. However, the tribunal rejected this request, stating that the appellant cannot benefit from his own lapses in substantiating his claims and seeking a remand at a later stage.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the confiscation of the Rs. 31,000 as the sale proceeds of contraband goods, dismissing the appeal and affirming the order of confiscation as legally sound.