1994 (7) TMI 208 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of Indian currency under Section 121 of the Customs Act.
2. Imposition of personal penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act.
3. Voluntariness and retraction of the appellant's statements.
4. Legitimacy of the seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act.
5. Claim of the seized currency as donations for a religious institution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation of Indian Currency under Section 121 of the Customs Act:

The appellant was apprehended with Indian currency amounting to Rs. 5,50,000/-, which was alleged to be the sale proceeds of smuggled wrist watches. The appellant initially admitted this in his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, but later retracted. The Tribunal considered the circumstances of the seizure, including the appellant's attempt to conceal the currency in a fruit basket at a public market, and concluded that the currency was indeed the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. The adjudicating authority's decision to confiscate the currency under Section 121 was upheld, as the appellant's behavior and the manner of concealment indicated illicit acquisition.

2. Imposition of Personal Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act:

The appellant was also subjected to a personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal noted that Section 112 pertains to acts related to the importation, carrying, and dealing with smuggled goods. However, the appellant was involved in collecting money liable to confiscation under Section 121, not directly dealing with smuggled goods. Therefore, the imposition of a personal penalty under Section 112 was deemed inappropriate and was set aside.

3. Voluntariness and Retraction of the Appellant's Statements:

The appellant's initial statement, admitting the currency as sale proceeds of smuggled goods, was recorded on 20-3-1985. He retracted this statement on 22-3-1985, claiming coercion and illegal detention. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of physical torture or coercion. The statement was written in the appellant's own handwriting, and subsequent retractions appeared to be legally advised. The Tribunal concluded that the initial statement was voluntary and reliable, corroborated by other evidence, including the testimony of a fruit vendor and the circumstances of the seizure.

4. Legitimacy of the Seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act:

The appellant argued that the seizure lacked a reasonable belief that the currency was the sale proceeds of smuggled goods, as required under Section 110. The Tribunal noted that the seizure was based on specific information and the appellant's immediate admission during oral interrogation. The circumstances of the seizure, such as the appellant's attempt to conceal the currency in a fruit basket, supported the reasonable belief of the seizing officers. The Tribunal upheld the legitimacy of the seizure.

5. Claim of the Seized Currency as Donations for a Religious Institution:

The appellant claimed that the seized currency was donations for Madress-e-Nurul Islam, a religious institution. However, this claim was made only in response to the Show Cause Notice, months after the seizure. The institution did not file an appeal or pursue the matter further. The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the appellant's claim, such as the denomination and packaging of the currency, and the lack of immediate action by the institution. The Tribunal rejected the claim that the currency was donations, concluding that it was the sale proceeds of smuggled goods.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the Indian currency amounting to Rs. 5,50,000/- under Section 121 of the Customs Act, but set aside the personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed under Section 112. The appellant's initial statement was deemed voluntary and reliable, and the seizure was found to be legitimate. The claim that the currency was donations for a religious institution was rejected.

← Previous Next →