9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ggled goods. 2. The facts of the case are that Surat Custom Officers raided the entire building Chaptwala Mansion occupied by the three brothers on different floors and had recovered the goods under the panchanama on 7-5-1990, from different premises but shown only appellant premises. Watches seized were under the possession of all the three brothers and their family members and in actual use. But they were clubbed and seized under one panchanama. They also seized Rs. 90,000/- from the possession of the appellant. It was the balance in the book of accounts of the firm and it was brought from the office as a security measure, as next day was Sunday, a holiday. The officers recorded his statement under duress and threat of pushing under COF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there is clear admission under Sec. 108 of the Customs Act. Statement and original accounts books are not at all produced before Respondents at any time and impugned order has to be confirmed. 5. Point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to get back Rs. 90,000/- Indian Currency seized in this case, as per the appeal memorandum. Our finding thereon is in the affirmative. 6. We have taken note of the arguments of both sides. We have perused the show cause notice dated 26-9-1990, its reply dated 29-10-1990, impugned order and appeal memorandum and Secs. 111(d) (l) and 121 of the Customs Act. As per the impugned order on the admission of the appellant, that Rs. 90,000/- is the sale proceeds of the smuggled goods, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admission of appellant alone; Rs. 90,000/- is confiscated. 7. The seizure of Rs. 90,000/- was in the early hours of 7-5-1990 Monday. Show cause notice is dated 26-9-1990. There was a time gap of 4 months 19 days. Show cause notice is replied on 29-10-1990 alongwith copy of accounts of the firm, nearly 5 months 22 days after the seizure of Rs. 90,000/- Indian Currency. The appellant has stated therein that at the time of seizure, the cash book of the firm was lying in the house of Methaji who had gone out of Surat for long period and so it could not be produced for verification by officers. He was also sick with low blood pressure and was under constant care of physician. Medical certificate dated 10-5-1990 was produced, Extract of Rojmal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eized, and the authorities are not empowered to take that money into custody, as per the decision in the case of Gurmukh Singh v. Union of India - 1984 (18) E.L.T. 274. 10. The impugned order has not dealt with the above legal position. As discussed above, the confiscation order is solely based on the admission of appellant in the statement under Sec. 108 of Customs Act, even according to Respondent. There is no satisfactory evidence to the effect that Rs. 90,000/- Indian Currency is the sale proceeds of smuggled goods for confiscation under Sec. 121 of Customs Act. From the above para, it is clear that in the absence of proof that Rs. 90,000/- is the sale proceeds of smuggled goods, it must be redeemed to the appellants from whom seized. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
