9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 15 lakhs was imposed on Shri Siddique under the Act. Similar penalties were also imposed on three others under different Sections of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The brief facts of the case are that at about 6 a.m. on 3-5-2001, the Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI and party had visited the departure hall of Thiruvananthapuram International Airport pursuant to intelligence gathered. The officers identified one Shri Siddique, waiting in the security hall to board Oman Airways flight No. WY1413. The baggage checked in by Shri Siddique was opened by the officers in the presence of the mahazar witnesses. A strolley bag and a zipper bag checked in by him contained foreign currencies and Indian currencies. The strolley bag contained US Dollars, Oman Riyals, Qatar Riyals, Saudi Riyals, UAE Dirhams, British Pounds, Singapore Dollars, Deutsche Marks, Malaysian Ringgits, Italian Liras, Kuwaiti Dinars and Bahrain Dinars and Swiss Francs determined to be of a total value of Indian Rs. 1,49,01,013.85 at the then existing exchange rate and Indian currency for Rs. 56,85,000/-. On examination of the zipper bag, the officers found Indian currencies for Rs. 50 lakhs. On a reasonable belief that Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ram. Shri Siddique gave another statement on 16-7-2001 to the SIO, DRI, Thiruvananthapuram, wherein he gave more details of the transactions he had already intimated. On 10-10-2001, Shri Siddique retracted the latest statement and represented to the authorities to cancel the order detaining him. The authorities rejected the representation as false and baseless. 6. As the investigation could not be completed within six months of seizure of the currencies, the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Cochin Commissionerate issued a show cause notice dated 9-10-2001 under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 110(2) of the Act, requiring the appellant to show cause why the period for issuing show cause notice should not be extended. After hearing Shri Siddique, the Commissioner passed an order extending the time limit for issue of show cause notice by another six months vide his order dated 23-10-2001. Accordingly a show cause notice dated 21-3-02 was issued to the appellant and the other persons found to be involved in the incriminating transactions. The appellant furnished a reply to the show cause notice and was heard. On conclusion of the adjudication proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant reiterated the grounds taken in appeal and also cited a single member decision of this Tribunal in B.R. Enterprises v. CC, New Delhi reported in 2004 (164) E.L.T. 266 (Tri.-Del.), wherein the Tribunal had set aside the order extending six months period on the ground that the same had been passed pursuant to the show cause notice proposing extension issued after the expiry of six months from the date of seizure. The ld. Advocate admitted the case against the appellant on merits but challenged the same on the ground that the order extending the period to issue show cause notice had not been issued in time and therefore, the currencies had to be returned. In any case, the appellant was entitled to redeem the currencies as decided in several cases citied in the appeal. Ld. SDR justified the reasoning of the Commissioner followed in the impugned order. 9. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and gone through the records of the case. In the impugned order it was found that huge amount of money in the form of various foreign and Indian currencies had been seized in the course of an attempt to export them which was precede ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of the seized goods. This obviously is so because the matter at that stage is under investigation. On launching proceedings under Chapter XIV, Section 124 enjoins issuance of a notice for which no period has been fixed within which notice may be given. The difference is obvious because this goes as a step towards trial. The ratio of this Court afore-quoted in Asstt. Collector v. Charandas Malhotra reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1477 (S.C.), thus settles the question afore-posed and the answer is that these two Sections 110 and 124 are independent, distinct and exclusive of each other, resulting in the survival of the proceedings under Section 124, even though the seized goods might have to be returned, or stand returned, in terms of Section 110 of the Act, after the expiry of the permissible period of seizure . 10. In view of the above observation of the Apex Court, the confiscation of the currencies and penalty imposed on the appellant are legally sustainable. As regards the entitlement to redemption of the confiscated goods, as decided in the Tribunal orders cited supra, we observe that the facts of those cases and the subject case are not identical. In the cited orders the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
