9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts are that the officers of customs searched the premises Room No. 2, 35 Mint Road, Fort on 18-1-91 which was occupied by Suresh Pukhraj Jain and Kishanlal Chaganlal Jain. Some 40 US $ recovered. While the search was going on Raj Babu Sahani entered the premises and tried to handover US $ 104 to Suresh Jain. This currency was also recovered. The officers also observed that one more person, T.P.S. Mohmed, suspiciously moving around the said premises under search. Interrogation of the said person revealed that he had given 10060 US $ to Suresh Pukhraj Jain for converting them into Indian currency. This currency was also recovered by the officers from the same premises. All the said currencies were seized on the ground that they represented ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng with his partner were dealing in foreign currency because foreigners used to visit their shop. He said his partner was also detained under COFEPOSA. He agreed that the currency of Rs. 8 lakhs seized by the officers was the sale proceeds of foreign currency and foreign marked gold. No statement was recorded of Hukmichand Jain as he remained absconding. 3. On the basis of this evidence the Commissioner dealt with the foreign currency in the impugned order with which we are not presently concerned as this appeal is filed by Laxmilal Chunilal Mehta against the confiscation of Rs. 8 lakhs and imposition of penalty on him. 4. Heard both sides. 5. We observe that the Commissioner came to the conclusion that Rs. 8 lakhs for the sale procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the adjudication proceedings were concluded. The department rightly relied on the statements given by the persons concerned to come to the conclusion that the said currency (Rs. 8 lakhs) were sale proceeds of foreign marked gold and foreign currency. The appellant has not brought any fresh evidence before us. His arguments were properly dealt with by the adjudicating authority before concluding that the said currency represented sale proceeds of smuggled gold and the foreign currency liable to confiscation under Section 121 of the Customs Act. He rightly imposed penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority. The appeal is rejected. The order of Commissioner is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
