Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 1997 (10) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1997 (10) TMI 260 - AT - Customs

Issues:
1. Modification of order for return of seized Indian Currency
2. Contention regarding the source of Indian Currency
3. Fabrication of documents and statements
4. Reliance on evidence and contradictions in statements
5. Legal evidence required for confiscation of currency

Analysis:

Issue 1: Modification of order for return of seized Indian Currency
The appeal was against the modification by the Commissioner (Appeals) of the order passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs, Jodhpur, regarding the confiscation of Indian Currency amounting to Rs. 35,000. The Commissioner directed the return of the currency to the individual from whom it was seized, Shri Bharat Kumar, as it was found that the currency was not linked to the purchase of allegedly smuggled gold but was intended for the purchase of a vehicle. The Commissioner noted discrepancies in the account book entry and the sequence of events leading to the seizure, ultimately concluding that the currency should be released to Shri Bharat Kumar alone.

Issue 2: Contention regarding the source of Indian Currency
The Revenue contended that the Indian Currency seized was the sale proceeds of smuggled gold, emphasizing that both Shri Bharat Kumar and Shri Devi Lal did not claim the currency was meant for purchasing a vehicle. The Revenue argued that the Bahi-Khata of Shri Babu Lal Soni, father of Shri Bharat Kumar, was fabricated and not supported by Shri Babu Lal initially, justifying the confiscation of the currency.

Issue 3: Fabrication of documents and statements
The Deputy Collector's order was based on the belief that the seized Indian Currency was the sale proceeds of smuggled gold, relying on a statement by Shri Bharat Kumar under Section 106 of the Customs Act. Despite a subsequent retraction of the statement and the submission of affidavits and documents to prove otherwise, the Deputy Collector deemed them as fabricated and an afterthought, leading to the confiscation order.

Issue 4: Reliance on evidence and contradictions in statements
During the appeal, the parties presented contradictory statements regarding the purpose of the seized currency. The respondents argued that the currency was intended for the purchase of a vehicle and cited precedents where contradictory statements were not relied upon. The absence of concrete evidence linking the currency to smuggled gold and the contradictions in statements were highlighted to support the return of the currency to Shri Bharat Kumar.

Issue 5: Legal evidence required for confiscation of currency
The judgment referred to legal precedents emphasizing the need for legal evidence to support the confiscation of currency as the sale proceeds of contraband goods. It was noted that the department failed to establish a direct link between the seized Indian Currency and the alleged smuggled gold, leading to the conclusion that the currency should be returned. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of concrete evidence and reasonable belief in cases of currency seizure under the Customs Act.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, citing legal precedents and the lack of evidence linking the seized Indian Currency to smuggled gold. The judgment emphasized the necessity of legal evidence and reasonable belief to support confiscation orders under the Customs Act, ultimately upholding the Commissioner's decision to return the currency to Shri Bharat Kumar.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates