1998 (2) TMI 331 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Confiscation of seized currency and bicycle under Customs Act, 1962
- Imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 1962
- Discrepancy in statements leading to inference of attempted exportation
- Lack of evidence against one of the appellants
- Proper course of action by Customs authorities

Analysis:
The case involved the confiscation of seized currency and a bicycle under the Customs Act, 1962, along with the imposition of penalties on the appellants. The original authority ordered absolute confiscation and imposed penalties under relevant sections of the Customs Act. However, the advocate for the appellant argued that the confiscated currency was the sale proceeds of goods in the shop of one of the appellants, not the shop itself. The advocate highlighted discrepancies in statements and challenged the inference of attempted exportation of the currency to Bangladesh. The advocate also pointed out the incorrect invocation of certain provisions in the show-cause notice. The advocate prayed for the appeal to be allowed and the impugned order to be set aside.

The respondent, on the other hand, argued that there were material discrepancies in the statements of one of the appellants, suggesting the intended exportation of the currency. The respondent contended that if the appellant had not been intercepted, the offense of exporting Indian currency to Bangladesh would have been committed. The respondent urged for the rejection of the appeals based on these arguments.

Upon considering the arguments from both sides, the judge observed that the appellant was apprehended between his brother's shop and a house, a fact not rebutted by lower authorities. The judge noted that the discrepancy in the statements of the appellant did not negate the place of apprehension as alleged. The judge criticized the lack of evidence regarding the apprehension and emphasized that the seized money belonged to a specific individual. The judge concluded that the lower authorities failed to prove the attempted exportation of the currency. Consequently, the judge quashed the impugned order, allowed the appeals, and ordered the restoration of the currency to its rightful owner. The penalties imposed were also set aside.

In conclusion, the judgment favored the appellants, ruling in their favor by restoring the currency to the rightful owner and setting aside the penalties imposed. The judge criticized the lack of evidence and improper inferences drawn by the lower authorities, ultimately leading to the quashing of the impugned order and the allowance of the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.