9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms Act, 1962 and Indian and Nepali Currency worth Rs. 1,51,150/- under Section 121 and Rs. 32,105/- under Section 121 read with Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposing penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 upon each of the appellants. He submits that in present case no reasonable believe was existing before making seizure since the existence of reasonable believe is a pre-condition of seizure. Therefore, the seizure is bad in law. He submits that the seized silver is not having any marking showing the foreign origin which is evident from the seizure memo. The Report of the Mint was not produced before the Court nor it was produced before the Court of the Economic offence. The seizure was ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Nepal currency is concerned, he submits that the court of the Economic Offence has held that the violation of Notification No. 76/Cus/65, dated 13-6-65 or the Section 50 of the FERA have not been vitiated since the prosecution failed to prove this. Further, he submits that there is no bar for a person to take or send within India or in Nepal Indian currency notes (not being notes of the denomination of above Rs. 100/-) and Indian coins or Nepali notes or coins without any limit. He, further, submits that the general permission has been granted by the Reserve Bank of India for bringing foreign exchange into India by any person outside India without limit. However, for the concrete value of the foreign exchange brought in by him in the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circular issued by the Ministry of Finance, Circular No. 394/233/88/Cus/ES issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue (Anti Smuggled Unit). This Tribunal s Larger Bench in the case of Shambhu Nath v. Commr. of Customs, Lucknow reported in 2002 (142) E.L.T. 342 (Tri.-LB) has observed that : Any person so aggrieved by seizure/confiscation of his silver bullion, it was upon to him to test it on the strength of above circular . The appellant s case regarding the seizure of silver is squarely covered by the decision rendered in the case of Murarilal Agarwal v. Commr. of Central Excise, Trichy reported in 2005 (179) E.L.T. 110 (Tri.-Chennai). In present case also the seized silver having no foreign, the total weight of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applied to the currency under seizure. Therefore, the burden in such cases not covered by Section 123 and therefore, it is to be discharged by the authority concerned. It is to be done by the authorities with evidence that the currency by virtue of nature of transaction is liable to be confiscation under 121. In present case, the burden has not been discharged by the authority and since the appellant s statement itself cannot find the sole basis for the confiscation of the currency, the currency cannot be held to be confiscable under section 121 as held in the case of K.P. Basheer v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin reported in 1999 (109) E.L.T. 247 (Tribunal). The Department has failed to prove that the Indian and Nepali currency was t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
