9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (6) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant has contested the impugned order dated 5-7-2001 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on him and confiscating the currency recovered from his possession. 2. The facts are not in much in dispute. On 9-12-93, the appellant was intercepted at Railway Station, Sadulpur Junction when he came from Delhi in Delhi-Bikaner Trai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served with the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority has imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the present appellant, but exhonorated Satyanarain Soni and Parameshwar Soni and Jagdish Saraf to whom also the gold was allegedly sold. The adjudicating authority also ordered the confiscation of the Indian currency. 3. The present appellant has challenged the imposition of penalty. He has cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, cannot claim the seized currency. The seized currency could be claimed only Hanif Mohd. who is alleged to be the owner. But there is nothing on the record to suggest that Hanif Mohd. has claimed this amount. The ratio of law laid down in Samsuddin Sheikh v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta - 1990 (47) E.L.T. 48 (Tribunal) = 1990 (26) ECR 227 referred by the Counsel is not attracted to the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elf had admitted that the money did not belong to him but to Mohd. Haniff. That being so, the claim for the release of the confiscated currency can be lodged only to Hanif Mohd. and not by the appellant who was only a carrier of money on his behalf. 5. In view the discussion made above, the impugned order to the extent of imposing the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant is set aside and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
