9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Indian currency of Rs. 4.55 lakhs which was stated by Shri Ramesh Kumar to be the sale proceeds of 20 gold biscuits handed over to the appellant. Sh Ramesh Kumar stated that money had been given to him by the appellant for handing over to Shri Sudesh Kumar. 2. As a follow up action, the residence of Shri Ramesh Kumar was searched on 8-12-85 as a result of which one piece of loose paper showing some incriminating entries of account was recovered. The residence of the appellant was searched on 9-12-85 with the assistance of the local police in the presence of Shri Surinder Mohan, brother of the appellant and another close relative, after breaking upon the locks of the residence and search resulted in recovery of foreign goods such as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Additional Collector of Customs, Amritsar who confiscated the Indian currency under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also confiscated some of the goods seized from the residence of the appellant. The Tribunal vide its Final Order No. A 55-57/89-NB dated 8-2-89, set aside the order of the Additional Collector and remanded the case for fresh decision. The case was re-adjudicated by the Additional Collector whose order was once again set aside by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 277-279/92-NB dated 4-6-92 and the cases were remanded to the Additional Collector. The present adjudication order was passed under which the amount of Rs. 4,55,000/- was confiscated on the ground that it was the sale proceeds of smuggled gold; two scooters w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able. This explanation has come out only on 1st March 1986 when a state- ment was recorded. There is no convincing reason coming forth as to why the appellant remained silent for a period of nearly three months from the date of seizure of the Indian currency from outside his residence. Further the appellant has stated that he informed Shri Baldev Raj on telephone on 13-12-85 about the seizure of Rs. 4,55,000/- but according to Shri Baldev Raj's state- ment dated 30-4-86, he (Shri Baldev Raj) came to know about the seizure only on 10-2-86. It is difficult to believe that Shri Baldev Raj did not make any enquiries about the purchase of the trucks for which he stated that he had given the above amount to the appellant. Shri Baldev Raj has also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale proceeds of smuggled gold handed over by the appellant to Shri Ramesh Kumar in return for 20 smuggled gold biscuits from Shri Sudesh Kumar. We therefore, hold that the appellant is liable to penalty. However, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances and also keeping in view that seizure took place 15 years ago; we reduce the penalty to Rs. 25,000/- (the amount directed to be deposited in compliance with the requirement of Section 129C of the Customs Act). 9. Coming to the confiscation of goods seized from the residence of the appellant, we find that the burden of proving that they were illegally brought into India, has not been discharged by the Department. The goods in question are not prohibited goods and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
