9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed incriminating documents along with unaccounted Indian Currency of Rs. 7,00,000/-, under mahazar proceedings dated 24.6.2014. 3. Subsequently, summons were served by the Department, both on Mr.Jayabal Shivakumar and on the Manager of the Travel Agency under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, calling upon them to appear for an enquiry on 30.6.2014. Mr.Jayabal Shivakumar appeared for the enquiry and he is alleged to have given a statement. 4. Thereafter, the said Shivakumar gave a representation on 21.7.2014 requesting the Additional Director General of Revenue Intelligence to return the Currency seized from him. But, the said request was turned down by a communication dated 10.7.2014. Therefore, seeking a mandamus to direct the Respondents to return the amount of Rs. 40,40,000/- seized from him, the passenger J.Shivakumar has come up with the writ petition W.P.No.22355 of 2014. 5. Similarly, the Travel Agency made representations for the return of the amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- seized from their office premises. But, those representations did not evoke any response. Therefore, the Travel Agency namely M/s. J.K.S.Air Travels has come up with the second writ petition No.22700 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it petition). 9. In other words, the claim of the Respondents is that the Indian Currency seized from the petitioner in the first writ petition at the Chennai Airport and the Indian Currency seized at the office premises of the petitioner in the second writ petition, represent the sale proceeds of smuggled Gold sent from Malaysia and Singapore. Therefore, the Respondents claim that the Currency cannot be returned. 10. Apart from the above factual position, the Respondents state that as per the amended Regulation 3 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations 2000, which came into effect from 04.06.2014, a person resident in India may take outside India, Indian Currency Notes only up to an amount of Rs. 25,000/- per person. Therefore, the attempt made by the petitioner in the first writ petition to smuggle Indian Currency worth Rs. 40,40,000/- was illegal and the Currency is liable for confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act read with the aforesaid Regulations. 11. Insofar as the Currency notes recovered from the Office Premises of the second Respondent is concerned, the Respondents claim that under Section 121 of the Customs Act 196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to confiscation. We are not concerned with Section 111 of the Act as the goods do not involve the goods improperly imported into India. But Section 113 of the Act, which could be thought of to be a mirror image of Section 111 of the Act, gives a list of goods, which, if improperly exported, are liable to confiscation. The case on hand may come within the purview of Clause (d) or (e) of Section 113, which speak about the goods brought within the limits of any Customs area for the purpose of being exported contrary to any prohibition imposed under any other law for the time being in force. Section 114 of the Act speaks about the penalty for attempting to export goods improperly. 17. Section 121 of the Act makes even the sale proceeds of smuggled goods, liable to confiscation. The pre-conditions for invoking Section 121 of the Act are (i) that the sale proceeds should relate to the smuggled goods, and (ii) that the sale should have been made by a person having knowledge or reason to believe that the goods are smuggled goods. 18. Section 122 of the Act names the officers who are competent to adjudge confiscation and penalties under the Act. The procedure for such adjudication is pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered from the residential house of a person. The cash was suspected to represent the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. Therefore, the cash was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The High Court directed the provisional release of the cash. When the matter was taken to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court held as follows:- "5. At this stage, it is suffice to state that the case involves seizure of Rs. 23.90 lakhs, the main ground of the Department was that there was some hawala transaction going on and that the said amount appeared to have been acquired in such a transaction. Under Section 110, the competent officer is authorized to seize such goods in respect of which he has reason to believe that they are liable to confiscation. The word "goods" is defined under Section 2(22) to include currency. Under Section 122, adjudication in respect of confiscation is provided for. Section 124 provides for show cause notice before confiscation. Under Section 110A provisional release of goods seized, pending adjudication, is provided for. However, looking into the facts of the present case, we are of the view prima facie that before adjudication, in exercise of writ jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... once it is found that a penalty in addition to confiscation is also possible under Section 114 of the Act, it may not be possible for this Court to order provisional release. After all, the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity in terms of Section 124 to show cause against confiscation. The adjudicating authority is obliged to give an option under Section 125 (1) of the Act, to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. The Respondents have a time limit of six months under Section 110(2) of the Act to initiate the proceedings. A period of three months has nearly expired. Therefore, at this stage, I do not wish to order the release of the Currency. This is for the simple reason that it may not be possible for the Respondents to even recover the fine, if ultimately the adjudication goes against the petitioner. Hence, W.P.No.22355 of 2014 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed. W.P.No.22700 of 2014 26. This writ petition is filed by a travel agency, from the office premises of which, the Respondents allegedly seized incriminating documents and unaccounted Indian Currency of Rs. 7,00,000/-. According to the Respondents, this money represents the sale proceeds of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
