9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Smuggling of foreign currency, Confiscation of currency, Imposition of penalty, Presence of witnesses, Voluntariness of statements, Evidentiary value of statements, Retraction of statements, Legal precedents
Smuggling of foreign currency: The case involved the interception of two individuals inside an aircraft, Shri Satish Kumar and Shri Bahadur Singh, with packets containing foreign currency to be smuggled out of India. The DRI officers kept surveillance based on specific information, leading to the recovery of 27 numbers of Deutsche Marks of 1000 denomination totaling Rs. 24,46,200. Both individuals admitted their involvement in the smuggling attempt, with Shri Satish Kumar detailing his association with Shri Kulbir Singh for such activities. Confiscation of currency and imposition of penalty: Show cause notices were issued proposing the confiscation of the seized currency and imposition of penalties under the relevant provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act read with the Customs Act. The Commissioner ordered absolute confiscation of the currency and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on each appellant. The appeals were filed against this penal action, leading to a detailed adjudication by the Tribunal. Presence of witnesses and voluntariness of statements: The appellants disputed the recovery of the currency, questioning the absence of passengers and crew members as witnesses and raising concerns about the Aircraft Entry register. However, the Tribunal found that the presence of the Seizing officer was established through the register and dismissed the challenge to the recovery process. The voluntary nature of the statements given by the appellants was also contested, but medical examination reports did not indicate coercion, leading the Tribunal to uphold the voluntariness of the statements. Evidentiary value of statements and legal precedents: Despite the appellants' retractions, the Tribunal found the statements to be detailed and corroborated, holding evidentiary value. Citing legal precedents, including the case of Surjit Singh Chhabra v. Union of India, the Tribunal emphasized that a confession, even if retracted, is binding. Distinguishing other case laws cited by the appellants, the Tribunal held that the evidence on record was sufficient to establish the appellants' involvement in smuggling foreign currency, upholding the imposition of penalty but reducing it to Rs. one lakh each considering the circumstances of the case. In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, emphasizing the involvement of the appellants in smuggling activities, the voluntariness of their statements, and the evidentiary value of the statements despite retractions. The reduction in the penalty was based on considerations such as the suspension of one appellant and the financial position of the other.
|
