9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 1101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es two lakh) upon him. The appellants is not challenging that portion of the order vide which the foreign currencies and the other connected materials stands confiscated, but is only aggrieved with the imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- under the provisions of Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The appellant was intercepted on 29-8-97, when he reported to the customs counter at the departure hall at NSC Bose International Airport, Calcutta on his way to Singapore by Singapore Airlines flight. As the officers were having some secret information about the said appellant, he was asked to declare as to whether he was carrying any foreign or Indian currency either in his hand baggage or in his person or in the regd. baggage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upees two lakh) upon the appellant. On an appeal against the above order, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner with directions to follow the principles of natural justice and to supply the copies of the baggage tags to the appellant. During de novo proceedings the requisite baggage tags were supplied to the appellant and after taking into consideration the appellant s submissions, the impugned order was passed. 4. I have heard Shri Aftab Ahmed, ld. Adv. for the appellant and Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, ld. JDR for the Revenue. 5. After giving my careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the present case I find that admittedly foreign currencies were recovered from the baggage regd. by the appellant. However, the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f seizure and a bail application was moved on his behalf. It was never contended in the bail application that the statement was not a voluntary statement. The appellant s contention as contained in the memo of appeal that he had verbally put it before the ld. Court that the statement was not voluntary cannot be accepted in the absence of evidence to that effect. If the appellant was challenging the correctness of the statement, nothing prevented him to put in writing in his bail application and to disclose before the ld. CJM that the baggage from which the currency has been recovered was not belonging to him. As such the ld. adjudicating authority has rightly rejected the belated retraction as an afterthought. 6. As regards the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
