1994 (8) TMI 118 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of Indian currency on the charge that it represents sale proceeds of smuggled gold

Summary

Issues:
Confiscation of Indian currency as sale proceeds of smuggled gold, validity of statements and evidence, burden of proof under Section 121 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
The case involved the confiscation of Indian currency as the sale proceeds of smuggled gold, seized from a car on Jaipur-Ajmer road. The Customs Department apprehended the car and found concealed currency in cavities. The driver and occupants provided statements, implicating the currency as proceeds from foreign marked gold sales. However, discrepancies arose regarding the source and purpose of the currency. The adjudicating authority heavily relied on one statement, disregarding the defense that the money was accounted for in the firm's cash book. The defense argued that the currency was legitimate, intended for purchasing silver, and the cavities in the car were for safety during transport.

The defense contended that the statement of one individual was retracted and not voluntary, challenging the authenticity of evidence and the waiver of cross-examination rights. The department relied on the statement, dismissing the cash book entries and implicating the firm in illicit activities. The case hinged on proving the currency as proceeds from smuggled goods under Section 121 of the Customs Act, necessitating specific elements like knowledge of smuggling and establishing seller, purchaser, and quantity of goods.

The appellate tribunal found discrepancies in the evidence and statements provided. The retracted statement, lack of concrete proof linking the currency to smuggled gold, and plausible explanations for the presence of the cash book raised doubts. Citing precedent, the tribunal emphasized the burden of proof on the department to establish the sale of smuggled goods by individuals with knowledge of their origin. As the department failed to meet this burden conclusively, the tribunal extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant, setting aside the confiscation order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.