9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are that on 10-5-1991 on a secret and specific information against the appellant and Pankaj Lalji Haria, that they are dealing in foreign marked gold to recover 25 gold biscuits or its sale proceeds, DRI officers of Bombay Zonal unit searched the premises No. 4/6, 1st floor, Laxmi Bhawan, Bora Bazar Street, Fort, Bombay and recovered foreign currency in different denomination of different countries. Pankaj Lalji Haria was present during the search of room in the above premises, who has deposed that it is the sale proceeds of contraband gold. Officers seized the foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 10,21,934.00 (LMV) in the reasonable belief that the same is liable to confiscation under the provisions of Customs Act. Statements of Pankaj Lal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o in Customs Act, 1962. They appeared to have rendered themselves liable to penalty under Sections 112(a) (b) of Customs Act. On 19-8-1991 show cause notice was issued to the above persons calling upon to show cause why foreign currency equivalent of Rs. 10,21,934/- seized should not be confiscated under Section 111 read with 121 of Customs Act, and why penalty should not be imposed under Section 112 of Customs Act. On receipt of reply from appellant, and from Pankaj dated 31-8-1991 through their counsel Shri V.M. Jehani, and after allowing cross-examination of one Panch Jagannath Pal, and DRI officers, as requested, and after hearing the counsel for both, Collector of Customs (P) passed the impugned order, confiscating the seized currenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be set aside. 3. Shri Dahiya learned JDR for department has argued that the spot is within km. to construction house (office). Pancha has withstood cross-examination - supports Panchanama - not a professional - no infirmity in his evidence. He is a nearby person - working there. Appellant is a partner in the deal. Seizure is natural. There is no complaint to magistrate for ill treatment. Retraction is on legal advise only. Para 10 of show cause notice is clear about import. Statements are substantive evidence as per Supreme Court Judgment in Naresh J. Sukhwane, clearly applies to make out the case. In the reply, it is contended that, if foreign currency is involved, it is a violation of FERA; For Import, there is no bar under Customs Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overed in this case. Whole case rests on the earlier transaction of 25-2-1991 for 10 gold biscuits only, which is not the charge in the show cause notice. Section 108 of Customs Act, statements of appellant and Pankaj Lalji Haria is specific and clear that appellant paid Rs. 3 lakhs only once, and it was returned within 2 days. It is also clear that appellant was not at all concerned with the disposal of smuggled gold biscuits by Pankaj Lalji Haria for foreign currency sales proceeds, in the room rented by him only. 6. The benefit accrued to appellant in financing 3 lakhs to Pankaj Lalji Haria is only 15% profit as agreed by both, which is Rs. 2,550/- even as per department s case, but actually it should be only Rs. 450/- as per the under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
