9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this case foreign exchange was seized from the shop premises as also from the persons as five individuals who were present in the shop, apart from the owner of the shop namely Abdul Razak Haji Ismail, the present appellant. Abdul Razak Hazi Ismail in his statement claimed that he was the dealer in foreign exchange. The other persons present also corroborated the statement and claimed that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ail. 2. Ld. Advocate Shri M.M. Patel claimed that a prescribed amount of foreign exchange could be freely imported by all passengers at the material time. Neither Abdul Razak Hazi Ismail nor any of the other five persons has admitted that the foreign currency confiscated was of smuggled origin. Currency was not a notified commodity either under Chapter IV-A of the Customs Act, 1962 or Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em could not therefore to be accepted. It was his claim that for want of satisfactory explanation, the orders of confiscation would survive. 3. I have carefully considered the rival claims. 4. It is settled principle of law that the burden of proof is on the person who levels charges. In extreme circumstances under the provisions of law, the burden can shift to the accused person but in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he burden of proof placed on department was not discharged and therefore the orders of confiscation of the foreign exchange do not survive. 5. As regards Section 121 of the Act I find that the basic stipulation is that the currency has to be the sale proceeds of smuggled goods where the seller has conscious knowledge that the goods are of smuggled origin. In the absence of the Customs establish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
