1993 (4) TMI 132 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals) Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh
- Confiscation of Indian currency under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962
- Imposition of penalties on the respondents
- Retraction of statement by the key witness, Shri Shashi Bhushan
- Lack of independent evidence to corroborate the statement
- Disbelief of ownership claims due to failure to disclose denominations of currency notes
- Burden of proof on the Department under Section 121
- Relationship between the seized currency and the respondents
- Contravention of Section 121 not established

Analysis:
The case involved six appeals by the Revenue challenging the order of the Collector (Appeals) Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh, regarding the confiscation of Indian currency under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the imposition of penalties on the respondents. The key witness, Shri Shashi Bhushan, was apprehended with the currency and stated that it represented sale proceeds of smuggled gold biscuits. However, his statement was retracted multiple times. The Department's case relied solely on Shashi Bhushan's statement, lacking independent evidence to support it. Searches at the residences of other individuals mentioned yielded no incriminating evidence. Ownership claims by other individuals were disbelieved due to failure to disclose currency denominations. The Tribunal found that the Department failed to meet the burden of proof under Section 121, as the evidence was insufficient to establish a relationship between the seized currency and the respondents. Consequently, the contravention of Section 121 was not proven, leading to the rejection of the appeals and the direction for the release of the seized currency to the claimants.

This judgment highlights the importance of substantial evidence and meeting the burden of proof in cases involving confiscation under the Customs Act. It underscores the need for corroborative evidence to support key witness statements and the consequences of failing to provide such evidence. The Tribunal's decision emphasizes the strict requirements for establishing contravention of relevant sections and the implications of not meeting those standards. The case serves as a reminder of the principles of evidence and burden of proof in legal proceedings, especially in matters involving confiscation and penalties under customs laws.