2012 (12) TMI 553 - AT - Customs

Penalty smuggling of foreign currency for consideration Held that - Foreign currency was recovered from one Shri Iqbal Suleman while boarding a flight of Oman Airways to Dubai. Shri Suleman in his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act named the appellants who helped him in taking the currency in the airport without disclosing to the Customs authorities for the consideration of ₹ 4,000/-, i.e. ₹ 2,000/- each - appellants also admitted that they had received, on earlier occasions also, gifts from Shri Suleman such as mobile phones etc. The appellants being in the security staff of the Oman Airways are to look after security of the passengers - for the safety of passengers travelling by air, the persons like the appellants being in the security staff can do anything for a monetary consideration In favor of revenue

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act for involvement in smuggling foreign currency without disclosure to Customs authorities.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellants challenging the imposition of penalties under Section 114 of the Customs Act for their involvement in smuggling foreign currency without disclosure to Customs authorities. The facts of the case revealed that one individual, Shri Iqbal Suleman, was intercepted by Customs officials while boarding a flight with undeclared foreign currency. Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act implicated the present appellants, who were working in the security staff of the airline. The adjudicating authority confiscated the currency and imposed penalties on the appellants. The appellants contended that they were not involved and that the statements recorded under Section 108 should not be relied upon as they were retracted. They also argued that there was no direct evidence linking them to the smuggling. However, the Revenue submitted that the appellants were involved in assisting Suleman in smuggling the currency, as per statements and evidence provided. The Revenue relied on a Supreme Court decision to support the admissibility of statements recorded under Section 108 as substantial evidence.

The Tribunal analyzed the evidence and contentions presented by both sides. It noted that the currency was recovered from Suleman, who implicated the appellants in his statement recorded under Section 108. The appellants also admitted to their involvement and receiving gifts from Suleman in the past. The Tribunal observed that as security staff, the appellants were entrusted with ensuring the safety of passengers, yet they assisted in smuggling currency for monetary gain. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order imposing penalties, emphasizing the seriousness of the appellants' actions in compromising air travel security for financial benefit. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the penalties imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act for involvement in smuggling foreign currency without disclosure to Customs authorities.