2000 (7) TMI 509 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Consideration of stay and waiver of pre-deposit.
2. Seizure of foreign currency and penalty imposition on the appellant.
3. Evidence linking the appellant to attempted export of foreign currency.
4. Reliance on statements of co-accused and lack of corroborative evidence.
5. Defense arguments and rejection of penalty imposition.
6. Examination of evidence and involvement of main person behind smuggling.
7. Conclusion on insufficient evidence and setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The case was initially posted for the consideration of stay, but the appellant's counsel argued for taking up the appeal itself due to the limited issue involved and requested a waiver of the pre-deposit, which was granted.

2. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence seized foreign currency concealed in jute bags meant for export, leading to the confiscation of the currency and imposition of a penalty on the appellant for his alleged role in the attempted export.

3. The appellant's counsel contended that there was insufficient evidence linking the appellant to the export of foreign currency, primarily relying on statements of individuals who had not directly witnessed the appellant's involvement. The appellant claimed to be out of the country during the incident.

4. The defense highlighted the lack of independent corroborative evidence to support the co-accused's statements, arguing that hearsay evidence and testimony of co-accused should not be the sole basis for imposing a penalty. The appellant's innocence was emphasized based on the rejection of certain contentions in the impugned order.

5. The learned DR defended the penalty based on the direct evidence of the appellant's role in concealing the currency in jute bags, emphasizing the necessity of upholding the order due to this evidence.

6. The involvement of another individual, Muthu, was considered significant in the smuggling attempt, but his relationship with the appellant and the source of the currency remained unclear. The reliance on vague and uncorroborated statements of co-accused was deemed insufficient to establish guilt.

7. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence presented did not adequately support the finding of the appellant's involvement in the smuggling attempt. As a result, the penalty imposed on the appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.