1989 (12) TMI 158 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Declaration of Indian currency before examination.
2. Cross-examination of panch witnesses.
3. Intention to export Indian currency illicitly.
4. Handing over currency to uncle at the airport.
5. Impact of acquittal in prosecution proceedings on departmental adjudication.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Declaration of Indian Currency Before Examination:

The appellant contended that he had declared the Indian currency before the examination of his briefcase. This is supported by his initial statement recorded on the day of the seizure. However, the Additional Collector relied on the panchnama, which indicated non-declaration. The appellant argued that the declaration was made to avoid embarrassment, which should still be considered a declaration. The tribunal observed that the appellant had checked in, crossed immigration, and arrived at the Customs Examination Hall, which indicated an intention to export the currency. Therefore, the tribunal held that even if the declaration was made at the point of opening the briefcase, the currency was liable for confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act.

2. Cross-Examination of Panch Witnesses:

The appellant argued that the cross-examination of panch witnesses was not taken into account, and hence the panchnama's version could not be relied upon. The tribunal did not find this argument convincing as the panchnama was categorical about the non-declaration of the Indian currency. The tribunal emphasized that the appellant's behavior, such as checking in and crossing immigration, indicated an intention to export the currency.

3. Intention to Export Indian Currency Illicitly:

The appellant claimed that there was no intention to export the Indian currency illicitly and that the currency was meant for a bona fide business purpose in India. The tribunal noted that the appellant's actions, such as carrying the currency to the Customs area after crossing immigration, indicated a deliberate attempt to export the currency without the Reserve Bank of India's permission. The tribunal held that the currency was liable for confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act.

4. Handing Over Currency to Uncle at the Airport:

The appellant stated that his intention was to hand over the currency to his uncle at the airport, who did not turn up. The tribunal found this explanation unconvincing. It noted that the appellant had his own vehicle and was accompanied by his driver and nephew, yet chose to carry the currency to the Customs area. The tribunal observed that if the appellant had no intention to export the currency, he would have deposited it at home or with his nephew. The tribunal also noted that the appellant's version of waiting for his uncle was introduced only after a time lag of 12 days, which further weakened his claim.

5. Impact of Acquittal in Prosecution Proceedings on Departmental Adjudication:

The appellant argued that the prosecution proceedings had resulted in his acquittal, which should impact the departmental adjudication. The tribunal agreed with the department's contention that acquittal in criminal proceedings does not bind departmental adjudication. The tribunal cited various judicial pronouncements to support the view that both proceedings are independent, and acquittal in prosecution does not absolve the appellant of penal liability in adjudication proceedings.

Conclusion:

The tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Additional Collector. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, and the confiscation of the Indian currency and the penalties imposed were upheld. The tribunal emphasized that the appellant's actions indicated a deliberate attempt to export the currency illicitly, and the currency was liable for confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act.