1991 (3) TMI 283 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of pant lengths, shirtings, watches, and currency under Customs Act.
2. Legality of confiscation of Rs. 20,800 under Customs Act.
3. Justifiability of penalties imposed on appellants.

Analysis:

Confiscation of Pant Lengths, Shirtings, Watches, and Currency:
The appellants contested the confiscation of pant lengths, shirtings, watches, and currency, arguing that the goods were legally purchased and the seized amount did not represent proceeds from smuggled goods. The appellants failed to prove the legitimacy of the goods, as the seller could not identify them, and receipts did not match the seized items. Consequently, the confiscation of the properties valued at Rs. 1,029 was deemed lawful. The watches, though claimed for personal use, lacked documentation to prove their legal acquisition, leading to their confiscation. The burden to prove the goods' legality was not met by the appellants, justifying the confiscation.

Legality of Confiscation of Rs. 20,800:
Regarding the confiscation of Rs. 20,800, it was found that the amount could only be confiscated if it represented proceeds from smuggled goods. The appellant's account books showed transactions in various items, but there was no concrete evidence linking the amount to smuggled goods. The absence of reliable proof led to the conclusion that the confiscation of the amount was not lawful. As the currency was not a notified item, the department failed to establish its link to smuggled goods. Consequently, the confiscation of Rs. 20,800 was set aside, ordering its release to the appellant.

Imposition of Penalties:
The penalties imposed on the appellants were scrutinized. The penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 on one appellant was deemed excessive, considering the value of confiscated goods and the lack of evidence linking them to smuggling activities. Therefore, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 1,000. In the case of the other appellant, it was highlighted that there was no evidence of joint possession or involvement in the business activities. Relying on legal precedent, it was concluded that the penalty imposed on the second appellant was unjustified. The penalty of Rs. 10,000 on the second appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed accordingly.