9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Seizure of currency, Confiscation under Section 121, Retraction of statement, Corroboration of evidence, Investigation quality, Probative value of statement, Presence of foreign currency, Explanation for possession, Reduction of penalty
Seizure of currency: The appellant was found carrying a substantial amount of foreign currency and claimed it was related to selling smuggled gold. The Commissioner ordered confiscation of the currency under Section 121 of the Act and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs. Confiscation under Section 121: The appellant contested the confiscation, arguing that his statement alone was insufficient evidence to prove the currency was from smuggled gold. The appellant retracted his statement, seeking corroboration by material evidence, which was lacking. The Counsel cited previous Tribunal decisions to support the argument. Retraction of statement: The appellant's retraction of the statement was challenged by the departmental representative, who argued that it lacked credibility and reasons. The retraction was deemed valueless due to inconsistencies and lack of challenge to the initial statement's veracity. Corroboration of evidence: The quality of the investigation was criticized for lacking essential details such as the identity of individuals involved. The appellant's statement was analyzed for its probative value, with the Tribunal ultimately dismissing the retraction as unreliable and accepting the initial statement as voluntary and true. Investigation quality: The Tribunal acknowledged the imperfections in the investigation but concluded that they did not render the appellant's statement unbelievable. The lack of detailed information did not significantly impact the credibility of the appellant's narrative. Presence of foreign currency: The unexplained possession of a substantial amount of foreign currency by the appellant was noted as a significant factor. The failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the currency raised suspicions regarding its source and legitimacy. Explanation for possession: The appellant's inability to provide a reasonable explanation for possessing a large sum of foreign currency was highlighted as a crucial aspect. The possession of such a significant amount without a valid explanation was considered suspicious and contributed to the decision. Reduction of penalty: The appellant's penalty was reduced from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 2.5 lakhs based on the argument that he was a middleman earning a modest commission. The reduction was deemed justified, leading to the partial allowance of the appeal. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision.
|
