2015 (12) TMI 536 - HC - Customs

Seizure of currency - confiscation under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Smuggling - Held that - Even before the appellate authority, no evidence was produced to prove that the said sum was relating to the sale proceeds of the smuggled goods, which were sold by the petitioner herein, who was having the knowledge or reason to believe that the goods are smuggled goods. - Before this Court also, such kind of evidence has not been produced. In the absence of such kind of evidence, the third respondent has rightly passed the order to release the said sum to the petitioner. On the contrary, there is absolutely nothing in the order of the appellate authority, either for upholding the confiscation of the said amount from the office of the petitioner or for setting aside the order of the third respondent or for rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner herein. - Court is of firm view that merely on the contradictory statements of somebody, the confiscation of anything from anybody is against law. - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Seizure of money from the office premises of the Petitioner
2. Failure to return the seized amount by the Respondents
3. Legal provisions under the Customs Act regarding confiscation
4. Dismissal of the appeal filed by the Petitioner by the appellate authority

Analysis:

1. Seizure of Money:
The Petitioner, a Proprietorship Concern engaged in air ticketing and travel services, had a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 as hand loan, out of which Rs. 3,00,000 was utilized for office expenses. On 24.06.2014, investigating officers seized Rs. 7,00,000 from the office without a search warrant. Despite representations and legal actions, the amount was not returned, leading to the filing of a Writ Petition for relief.

2. Failure to Return Seized Amount:
The Petitioner contended that the failure to return the seized amount was contrary to Customs Act provisions and past judgments. The Respondents argued that an appeal challenging the release of the seized amount was pending, hence it could not be returned until the appeal's disposal. The court directed the appellate authority to expedite the appeal's resolution.

3. Legal Provisions under Customs Act:
The 3rd Respondent, appointed as the adjudicating authority, passed an Order-in-Original releasing the seized amount as it was not liable for confiscation under Section 121 of the Customs Act. Section 121 deals with the confiscation of sale proceeds of smuggled goods, requiring specific conditions to be met for confiscation, which were not evidenced in this case.

4. Dismissal of Petitioner's Appeal:
The appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner, citing lack of response to summonses and statements from involved parties. However, the court found no valid reason for dismissing the appeal, as there was no evidence linking the seized amount to smuggled goods or proving the Petitioner's involvement in any illegal activities. The court set aside the appellate authority's decision and directed the Respondents to return the seized amount within two weeks, subject to certain conditions.

In conclusion, the court allowed the Writ Petition, emphasizing the lack of evidence linking the seized amount to any illegal activities. The judgment highlighted the importance of following legal procedures and providing substantial evidence before confiscating any property.