9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... derations. The Indian currency was concealed to avoid being detected. It is clear from the aforesaid finding that the applicant was not treated as the owner of the said currency and as far as ownership is concerned, it was clearly implied that the ownership belonged to Vinod Kumar Saini, who had given the said currency to the applicant for being taken to Dubai. It was meant to be delivered to Rakesh. Neither with the writ petition nor with the present application, any details or particulars of any order/s against Vinod Kumar Saini have been filed. It is also not indicated whether any proceedings were initiated against Vinod Kumar Saini and the effect thereof. In view of the aforesaid position and the above discussion, we do not think that the applicant is entitled to benefit of Section 125 of the Act. In our order dated 22nd July, 2013, we had noticed that there was a delay and laches in filing of the writ petition. The impugned order is dated 9th October, 2012 and the writ petition was filed in July, 2013. Before us, it was contended that the applicant was a poor man and had to arrange for resources for filing the writ petition. The aforesaid stand, we had observed, confirms an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e importation or exportation whereof is prohibited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, and shall, in the case of any other goods, give to the owner of the goods or, where such owner is not known, the person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized, an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the said officer thinks fit : Provided that, without prejudice to the provisions of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 115, such fine shall not exceed the market price of the goods confiscated, less in the case of imported goods the duty chargeable thereon. (2) Where any fine in lieu of confiscation of goods is imposed under sub-section (1), the owner of such goods or the person referred to in sub-section (1), shall, in addition, be liable to any duty and charges payable in respect of such goods. 3. It is highlighted that by amendment inserted by way of Act No. 80 of 1985, the Legislature had incorporated the words or, where such owner is not known, the person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized would have an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation of such goods. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to redeem the currency seized on payment of fine of ₹ 1,50,000/-. Penalty of ₹ 2,00,000/- under Section 114 of the Act was imposed. 6. Revenue preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), but it appears that the first appellate authority upheld the direction regarding the redemption of the currency on payment of fine of ₹ 1,50,000/-. Copy of the grounds of appeal and the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) are not on record and were not filed with the writ petition. 6. Aggrieved, Revenue preferred a Revision petition before the Government of India under Section 129DD of the Act. The applicant also filed a Revision Petition. The Revision petition filed by the Revenue stands allowed vide order dated 9th October, 2011, holding inter alia, that the authorities had erred in allowing redemption of the currency as the applicant was a mere carrier of goods and the currencies did not belong to him. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant is right that in paragraph No.9 of the impugned order, the Joint Secretary to the Government of India has observed that the currencies did not belong to the applicant and the same were liable to be confiscated absolu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that he had Indian currency concealed in sweet boxes and card board boxes (gattas); that for safe delivery of the currency in Dubai to one Shri Rakesh he was to get 600 UAE Dirhams and due to greed he agreed to carry the currency; that he knew that carrying, importing and exporting Indian currency to Dubai was illegal as he had been coming from/going to Dubai for the past many years. Further, during the course of investigation, summons was issued to Shri Vinod Kumar Saini and his statement under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was recorded on 09-01-2010 wherein he inter alia stated that he knew Shri Ram Kumar that he had been working in Dubai for the past many years; that, on 02-11-2009, he went to Sanganer Airport, Jaipur to see off Shri Ram Kumar; that on being shown the call details he admitted incoming and outgoing calls received from/made to Shri Rakesh; that on 02-11-2009, he talked to Shri Rakesh Kumar and Shri Tulsi Ram (his relative) from his mobile telephone; that the Indian and foreign currency recovered from Shri Ram Kumar did not belong to him (Shri Vinod Kumar Saini) and also he had not given the same to Shri Ram Kumar; that Shri Ram Kumar was te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notes that in view of principles laid down in the above said judgments, the goods attempted to be imported/exported is a concealed manner in violation to relevant statutory provisions are to be absolutely confiscated. 9. In the aforesaid paragraphs, the Revisionary Authority held that the applicant was merely a carrier of the said currency, which the applicant wanted to take out of India for monetary considerations. The Indian currency was concealed to avoid being detected. It is clear from the aforesaid finding that the applicant was not treated as the owner of the said currency and as far as ownership is concerned, it was clearly implied that the ownership belonged to Vinod Kumar Saini, who had given the said currency to the applicant for being taken to Dubai. It was meant to be delivered to Rakesh. 10. Neither with the writ petition nor with the present application, any details or particulars of any order/s against Vinod Kumar Saini have been filed. It is also not indicated whether any proceedings were initiated against Vinod Kumar Saini and the effect thereof. In view of the aforesaid position and the above discussion, we do not think that the applicant is entitled to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
