1988 (8) TMI 242 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of Indian currency under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Imposition of fine and penalty under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
3. Validity and territorial jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh High Court's interim order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation of Indian Currency under the Customs Act, 1962:

The Customs authorities intercepted appellant Lalith Kumar at Cochin Airport and recovered Rs. 5 lakhs in Indian currency, suspecting it to be the sale proceeds of contraband gold. The authorities seized the currency under a mahazar. Lalith Kumar initially stated that the currency was from the sale of gold ornaments to Fashion Jewellery, which denied making any cash payment. Later, Lalith Kumar claimed the money was brought from Nellore and belonged to his employer, appellant Mohanlal B. Jain, a licensed gold dealer.

The adjudicating authority concluded the currency represented the sale proceeds of contraband gold based on the unsatisfactory explanation and discrepancies in the appellants' statements. However, the Tribunal found no direct or circumstantial evidence to support this conclusion. The Tribunal noted that even if the appellants' explanation was false, it did not automatically mean the currency was from contraband gold. The Tribunal criticized the adjudicating authority's reasoning as speculative and unsupported by evidence, setting aside the order of absolute confiscation and directing the return of the currency to Mohanlal B. Jain.

2. Imposition of Fine and Penalty under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968:

The appellants were fined and penalized under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The Tribunal noted that appellant Mohanlal B. Jain had an interim order from the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing him to transact business outside his licensed premises through travelling salesmen. The Tribunal acknowledged that Section 27(7)(b) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, restricts licensed dealers to their specified premises, and referenced Supreme Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court rulings upholding this restriction.

However, the Tribunal emphasized that the interim order from the Andhra Pradesh High Court was valid and binding on the Department, which was a party to the writ proceedings. The Tribunal held that the appellants could not be guilty of contravention due to the interim order and set aside the fine and penalty imposed under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

3. Validity and Territorial Jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh High Court's Interim Order:

The Tribunal addressed the argument that the Andhra Pradesh High Court's interim order was only valid within its territorial jurisdiction. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the Department, being a party to the writ proceedings, was bound by the order irrespective of territorial limits. The Tribunal noted that the sale and seizure occurred while the interim order was in force, protecting the appellants from contravention charges.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation of the Indian currency and the penalties imposed under both the Customs Act, 1962, and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, directing the return of the currency to Mohanlal B. Jain and disposing of the appeals accordingly.