9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case as set out in the order-in-original dated, 18-10-1994 by the Deputy Collector of Customs, Siliguri, are reproduced below :- On 28-8-1993 at about 18.15 hours, the B.S.F. personnel of Gopalganj B.S.F. recovered Rs. 50,000/- from the possession of Emajuddin Ali near B.P. No. 180/2-5 as he was trying to export the same illegally to Bangladesh. He along with the seized currency and bi-cycle were handed over to Kaliachak Customs for taking action under Customs Act, 1962, and the seized the goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. Emajuddin Ali voluntarily stated before the Customs Officers on 29-8-1993 that he had collected Rs. 50,000/- only from the wife of Lutfal Haque on 28-8-1993 and that the B.S.F. Intercepted him b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- each under Section ............ 1962, on the two appellants. He exonerated Muksad Ali for lack of evidence against him. 4. Ld. Advocate, Shri S.N. Sanyal has submitted that the confiscated currency were sale proceeds of goods in the shop of Md. Lutfal Haque, the appellant herein whereas the authorities have mistakenly relied upon that the sale proceeds were of the shop itself. He says this is completely a wrong reading of the statement of Lutfal Haque. He also points out that the discrepancy between the two statements of Emajuddin recorded on 28-8-1993, has wrongly been made the basis for coming to an un-warranted inference that the seized currency was intended to be exported to Bangladesh. There is absolutely no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ouse of Lutfal Haque. This fact has not been rebutted by the lower authorities by any evidences whatsoever. Even the reliance placed on the discrepancy in the two statements given on 29-8-1993 by Emajuddin can in no way rebut the place of apprehension as alleged by the appellant. Proper course for the Customs authorities would have been to record the statement of B.S.F. personnel or any other person witness to the apprehension of Emajuddin, when the appellant, Emajuddin, was detected. In the absence of this evidence, it is not possible to infer, as the lower authorities have attempted to do, that the seized currency of Rs. 50,000/- was attempted to be taken to Bangladesh. The discrepancy referred to in the impugned order in the two statemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
