2015 (12) TMI 167 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty under Section 114 - Seizure of currency - Held that - On perusal of findings of the impugned order, the adjudicating has clearly brought out in detail the attempt of smuggling of Indian currency of ₹ 41,60,000/- by way of concealment. The original statement of both the appellant and the statement of other witnesses are clearly brought out in the said order. Attempt to smuggling of foreign currency has been clearly established. But for the timely detection the currency would have been smuggled out. Only after the seizure and arrest, the appellant were trying to disown the currency whereas subsequent statement has clearly proved otherwise. As per the statement recorded before the Customs it was a valid evidence and also based on the circumstantial evidences it is clearly brought out that attempt of smuggling of Indian currency belonged to Kirankumar and Anwar Aneesur Rahman carried the same as per the instruction of the first appellant. As per the statement recorded before the Customs it was a valid evidence and also based on the circumstantial evidences it is clearly brought out that attempt of smuggling of Indian currency belonged to Kirankumar and Anwar Aneesur Rahman carried the same as per the instruction of the first appellant. - present case relates to attempt to export of Indian currency in violation of Customs Act and FEMA. Therefore, appellants are liable for penalty under Section 114. However, taking into overall facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the acquittal of appellant in prosecution, I reduce the penalty - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty for smuggling Indian currency under Customs Act and FEMA regulations.

Analysis:
The case involved appeals against the imposition of penalties arising from a common Order-In-Original (OIO) passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, related to the smuggling of Indian currency. The baggage of a passenger bound for Dubai was detained at the Chennai airport, leading to the seizure of a significant amount of Indian currency concealed in suitcases. The Commissioner ordered absolute confiscation of the currency and imposed penalties under the Customs Act. The appellants challenged these penalties.

The advocates for the appellants argued that there was no evidence of smuggling or attempt to export currency, citing the dismissal of parallel prosecution proceedings by the Criminal court due to lack of evidence. They relied on various case laws to support their arguments. On the other hand, the Advocate representing the Customs department contended that there was a clear attempt to smuggle Indian currency, supported by evidence linking the appellants and their involvement in concealing the currency. The department emphasized the circumstantial evidence and the connection between the appellants and the seized currency.

Upon reviewing the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal found that there was a clear attempt to smuggle Indian currency, as established by the concealment and circumstantial evidence. The confessional statements of the appellants and corroborative evidence played a crucial role in determining their involvement in the smuggling attempt. The Tribunal referred to relevant case laws to support its decision, emphasizing the significance of confessional statements and corroborative evidence in such cases.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the imposition of penalties under Section 114 of the Customs Act but decided to reduce the penalties considering the overall circumstances of the case and the acquittal in the prosecution proceedings. The penalty imposed on the first appellant was reduced from Rs. 4 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs, and on the second appellant from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 10,000. The appeals were partly allowed with the revised penalties.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of confessional statements and corroborative evidence in cases of attempted smuggling, leading to the imposition of reduced penalties on the appellants based on the specific circumstances of the case.