9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 1100 - HC - CustomsSeizure of Indian currency concealed in clothings in the hand baggage - Seizure on the suspicion that it is the sale proceeds of smuggled gold sent from Malaysia and Singapore - violation of Regulation 3 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2000 - Held that - Once it is found that the goods in question, namely Indian Currency are liable to confiscation under Section 113 and once it is found that a penalty in addition to confiscation is also possible under Section 114 of the Act, it may not be possible for this Court to order provisional release. After all, the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity in terms of Section 124 to show cause against confiscation. The adjudicating authority is obliged to give an option under Section 125 (1) of the Act, to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. The Respondents have a time limit of six months under Section 110(2) of the Act to initiate the proceedings. A period of three months has nearly expired. Therefore, at this stage, I do not wish to order the release of the Currency. This is for the simple reason that it may not be possible for the Respondents to even recover the fine, if ultimately the adjudication goes against the petitioner. Cash seized from the office premises of the petitioner in the second writ petition is on suspicion. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof, however, strong it may be. Therefore, refusing to order the provisional release of the cash seized from the premises of the petitioner in the second writ petition, may give a leverage or licence to the Respondents to stamp any item or cash seized from any office premises as the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. The scheme of Sections 113 read with Sections 121 to 124 do not appear to authorise such a course. As I have pointed out in para 17 above, two pre-conditions are to be satisfied for invoking Section 121 of the Act to order confiscation. There is no prima facie evidence to show that both these pre-conditions are satisfied in the second case on hand. The Constitutional guarantee with respect to the right to property under Article 300A cannot be allowed to be infringed at the drop of the hat, by allowing the officers to walk into any office and seize cash on the ground that they represent the sale proceeds of the smuggled goods. Therefore, I am of the view that the second writ petition deserves to be allowed. - Decided partly in favour of appellants.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the seizure of Indian Currency from the petitioner at the Chennai Airport. 2. Legality of the seizure of Indian Currency from the office premises of the travel agency. 3. Applicability of the Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2000. 4. Provisional release of seized currency. 5. Confiscation under Sections 113 and 121 of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. Right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Seizure of Indian Currency from the Petitioner at the Chennai Airport: The petitioner was intercepted at Chennai International Airport with Rs. 40,40,000/- in Indian Currency concealed in his clothing. This act was in violation of Regulation 3 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2000, which permits only up to Rs. 25,000/- to be taken outside India. The currency was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows the proper officer to seize goods believed to be liable for confiscation. The court found that the currency was liable to confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act as it was brought within the customs area for the purpose of export contrary to the prohibition imposed by the said regulations. 2. Legality of the Seizure of Indian Currency from the Office Premises of the Travel Agency: The travel agency's office was searched, and Rs. 7,00,000/- in Indian Currency was seized. The Respondents claimed that this money represented the sale proceeds of smuggled gold. However, the court noted that the seizure was based on suspicion and statements from other individuals, without concrete evidence. The court emphasized that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. The Respondents failed to produce adjudication proceedings against the individuals who allegedly smuggled the gold, making the seizure of the currency from the travel agency's office questionable. 3. Applicability of the Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2000: The court confirmed that the petitioner at the airport violated Regulation 3 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2000, by attempting to export Indian Currency exceeding Rs. 25,000/-. This regulation was pivotal in determining the legality of the seizure and the subsequent confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act. 4. Provisional Release of Seized Currency: The court referred to Section 110-A of the Customs Act, which allows the provisional release of seized goods. However, in the case of the petitioner at the airport, the court decided against provisional release, citing the risk of non-recovery of fines if the adjudication goes against the petitioner. Conversely, for the travel agency, the court ordered the provisional release of the seized Rs. 7,00,000/-, subject to the execution of a personal bond, as the seizure was based on suspicion without concrete proof. 5. Confiscation under Sections 113 and 121 of the Customs Act, 1962: Section 113(d) of the Customs Act was applicable to the petitioner at the airport, making the currency liable for confiscation due to the violation of export regulations. Section 121, which deals with the confiscation of sale proceeds of smuggled goods, was discussed in relation to the travel agency. The court found no prima facie evidence that the seized currency from the travel agency's office met the preconditions for confiscation under Section 121. 6. Right to Property under Article 300A of the Constitution: The court underscored the constitutional guarantee of the right to property under Article 300A. It emphasized that this right cannot be infringed upon without due process. The seizure of currency from the travel agency's office, based on suspicion, was deemed an infringement of this right, leading to the order for the return of the seized amount. Judgment: - W.P.No.22355 of 2014: Dismissed. The court did not order the release of Rs. 40,40,000/- seized from the petitioner at the airport, as the currency was liable for confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act. - W.P.No.22700 of 2014: Allowed. The court directed the Respondents to return Rs. 7,00,000/- seized from the travel agency's office within two weeks, subject to the execution of a personal bond. Conclusion: The court meticulously analyzed the legality of the seizures, the applicability of relevant regulations, and the constitutional right to property, leading to a nuanced judgment that differentiated between the two cases based on the evidence and legal provisions.
|
