TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m valued Rs. 20/- were confiscated absolutely under Section 121 and Section 111(d) respectively of the Customs Act, 1962 and a penalty of Rs. 500/- was imposed under Section 112 ibid on Shri Jyoti Agarwal. 2. The matrix of the case is that a Maruti Van bearing No. AS-14-4492 proceeding towards Siliguri was stopped and checked by the officers of customs in front of Naxalbari Customs office in which they found the appellant, besides the driver. They were taken to the said customs office and were searched in the presence of two witnesses which resulted in the seizure of the aforementioned cardamom and Indian currency. No other incriminating material was found either on the person of the said individuals or in the vehicle. In interrogation, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ardamom and the Indian currency and proposing penal action against the appellant under the Customs law and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The appellant stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the said show cause notice. As regards 27 notes of Indian currency of Rs. 500/- denomination, the appellant explained that while returning from Nepal he exchanged Rs. 100/- denomination notes for Rs. 500/- denomination notes with his friend at Naxalbari who was in dire need of the same. He vehemently denied the charge of his involvement in smuggling activities. He alleged that a false case was made against him when he approached the Customs officers at Naxalbari to enquire whether there was any hindrance in undertaking a journey to Nepal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion and it was self-contradictory, vague, ambiguous and uncorroborated and as such liable to be rejected outright. Refuting the charge that the Indian currency seized from him was sale proceeds of the smuggled betel-nuts and cardamom and relying on the decision of the Tribunal in Ramachandra v. C.C. - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 277 (T), the appellant argues that the authorities below failed to appreciate that for invoking Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962, the ingredients required are - (i) there must a sale; (ii) the same must be of smuggled goods; (iii) the sale must be by a person having knowledge or reason to believe that the goods are of smuggled origin; and (iv) the seller and purchaser and the quantity of the goods involved must be establi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ram v. State of Punjab - AIR 1953 S.C. 459 (Vol. 40, CN. III) ; (vi) Tejpal Jain v. UOI - [1995 (77) E.L.T. 820 (M.P.) = 1995 (57) ECR 452]; (vii) Commissiuner of Customs (Prev.), Calcutta v. Rajit Ghosh Alias Rama Ghosh - 1998 (104) E.L.T. 349 (T); (viii) State of Maharastra v. Abdul Sattar Mohammedbhai - 1989 (42) E.L.T. 179 (Bom.); (ix) State of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh - 1989 (20) ECR 313; (x) Jhunu Rani Saha v. C. C. (Preventive) - 1993 (68) E.L.T. 649 (T); (xi) C.C. v. Om Prakash - 1993 (67) E.L.T. 966 (T) ; (xii) Shafi Ahmed v. C.C., Cochin - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 453 (T) ; (xiii) Pradeep Kumar Singh v. C.C., Lucknow - 1998 (104) E.L.T. 111 (T); and (xiv) Hukmi Chand Ghewar Chand Saraf v. C.C. Jaipur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation Act in respect of the Indian currency in 500 Rupee denomination, there is no evidence to show that he carried the same from Nepal. His explanation that he exchanged the said notes with his friend at Naxalbari being reasonable is acceptable. Hence, this charge also falls to the ground. As regards the 100 gms. of cardamom seized from the person of the appellant, I accept the explanation of the appellant that he carried the same as a mouth freshener in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary. 6. The aforesaid discussion points to the fact that there is much ado about nothing. As such, the order impugned is required to be set aside with consequential relief to the appellant. Accordingly, I do so. 7. In the result, the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|