2003 (4) TMI 127 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to the order of confiscation and penalty by the Respondents before CEGAT
- Jurisdiction of High Court under Section 130(3) of the Customs Act, 1962
- Question of law regarding the confiscation of Indian currency not belonging to the Respondents
- Whether the Tribunal was justified in quashing the order of confiscation

Analysis:

The Commissioner of Customs filed an application under Section 130(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 against the Order of CEGAT, Bombay dismissing the Reference Application filed by the Commissioner under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act. The key issue raised was whether the Respondents had the right to challenge the confiscation of Indian currency and penalty imposed, considering the currency did not belong to them and was suspected to be proceeds of smuggled goods.

The Respondents, a company involved in the business of Angadia, had their premises searched by Customs officers, leading to the seizure of a significant amount of currency. Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act indicated that the currency did not belong to the Respondents but to certain Bankers dealing in smuggled goods. Despite show cause notices, the alleged owners of the currency did not participate in the adjudication proceedings.

The Collector of Customs confiscated the currency and imposed penalties on the Respondents. CEGAT later allowed the appeal by the Respondents, leading to the Revenue filing a Reference Application under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act. The Commissioner contended that the Respondents, not being the owners of the currency, had no standing to challenge the confiscation. The Tribunal, however, set aside the confiscation order based on the Respondents' admission and lack of evidence regarding ownership.

The High Court analyzed the Tribunal's order and reframed the question of law to focus on whether the Tribunal was justified in quashing the confiscation order despite the currency not belonging to the Respondents and the alleged owners not claiming it. The Court directed the Tribunal to raise the reframed question for its opinion, allowing the Reference Application in favor of the Commissioner.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the intricacies of jurisdiction under the Customs Act, the rights of aggrieved parties to challenge confiscation orders, and the evidentiary weight of statements recorded under Section 108. The High Court's decision to reframe the question of law showcases a meticulous approach to ensure a comprehensive analysis of the issues involved.