1986 (7) TMI 274 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Confiscation of Indian currency under Sec. 121 of the Customs Act, 1962
- Claim of ownership over the seized currency by the appellants
- Validity of the confiscation order and rejection of appellant's claim

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the confiscation of Indian currency amounting to Rs. 1 lakh under Sec. 121 of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involves Central Excise Officers visiting the appellants' business premises and seizing gold bars and currency. The appellants disowned both the gold and currency at the time of seizure. The appellants later claimed ownership of the currency, arguing that it did not represent the sale proceeds of contraband goods. The appellants contended that the seizure was unlawful as there was no evidence linking the currency to illicit activities. They further claimed that the statements disowning the currency were not voluntary. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative argued that the appellants' delayed claim and prior disowning of the currency should disentitle them from ownership. The Representative highlighted circumstances supporting the reasonable belief behind the seizure, including the concealment of currency and recovery of gold from unauthorized premises.

The primary issue addressed by the tribunal was whether the appellants had a legal right to claim ownership of the seized currency. The tribunal examined the statements made by the appellants at the time of seizure, where they disowned the currency. Despite subsequent claims, the tribunal found the earlier statements to be true and voluntary. The tribunal noted the appellants' failure to make any claim to the currency in various communications and legal proceedings following the seizure. The tribunal concluded that the appellants' conduct, combined with their initial disowning of the currency, indicated they had no legal title or right to claim ownership. Therefore, the tribunal upheld the confiscation order and rejected the appeals, stating that the appellants were not entitled to the currency under the law.

In the judgment, the tribunal emphasized the importance of the appellants' initial statements disowning the currency, which were considered true and voluntary. The tribunal scrutinized the appellants' conduct post-seizure, highlighting their failure to assert any ownership claim over the currency in subsequent communications and legal proceedings. The tribunal found that the appellants' belated claim, made in response to the show cause notice, was legally untenable given their earlier disavowal of the currency. Ultimately, the tribunal held that the appellants had no legal title to the seized currency, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. The tribunal's decision was based on the appellants' consistent disavowal of the currency and their failure to establish a legal right to claim ownership.