9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kind of evidence, the third respondent has rightly passed the order to release the said sum to the petitioner. On the contrary, there is absolutely nothing in the order of the appellate authority, either for upholding the confiscation of the said amount from the office of the petitioner or for setting aside the order of the third respondent or for rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner herein. - Court is of firm view that merely on the contradictory statements of somebody, the confiscation of anything from anybody is against law. - Decided in favour of appellant. - WP.No.20715 of 2015, MP.No.1 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 24-11-2015 - R. Mahadevan, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Jayaraj For the Respondents : Mr. T. Chandrase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, on enquiry with the investigating agency, came to know that one of its customers, to whom the Petitioner had booked air ticket, was caught by the Officers for having possession of Indian currency more than the prescribed limit, while boarding abroad. Under the guise of suspicion, the office premises of the Petitioner was searched and there was promise that after scrutiny, the seized amount would be released. The Manager has made a representation dated 14.7.2014 and the Petitioner has also made a representation on 16.7.2014, stating briefly the source of money and requesting to return the seized amount. But, in turn, summons were issued to appear on three occasions on 21.7.2014, 25.7.2014 and 1.8.2014 and for all the summons, the Petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal No.58,dated 30.4.2015, releasing the seized sum of ₹ 7,00,000/-, as the same is not liable for confiscation under Section 121 of the Customs Act. However, the said seized amount has not been returned to the Petitioner. Hence, this Writ Petition has been filed for the relief as stated above. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the act of the Respondents in not returning the seized amount is not only contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act and Circulars issued by the Department, but also against the decisions reported in 1991-55-ELT-433 (Union of India Vs. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation Limited) and that because of not releasing the seized money, the business operations of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal. 8. Thereafter, the appeal filed by the petitioner herein in Appeal File No.C4/329/0/2015-Air was dismissed by the appellate authority/Commissioner (Appeals-I) along with the appeal filed by the Department as against the Order-in-Original NO.58/2015, dated 30.4.2015 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication-Air), by order, dated 14.9.2015. 9. A perusal of the order of the appellate authority absolutely shows no reason for dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner herein or for setting aside the Clause (v) of the order of the Joint Commissioner of Customs passed in Order-in-Original No.58 of 2015, dated 30.4.2015. 10. It is pertinent to refer the order of the appellate authority in respect of the appeal f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .C4-I/385/)/2015-Air as infructuous; and (ii) reject the appeal filed by the appellant viz., Shri S. Jalaludeen in File No.C4-I/329/O/2015-Air as devoid of merits. 11. As afore stated, there is absolutely no reason or finding to set aside the Clause (v) of the Order of the Joint Commissioner of Customs passed in Order-in-Original No.58 of 2015, dated 30.4.2015 or for rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner herein. 12. Clause (v) of the order of the Joint Commissioner of Customs, dated 30.4.2015, reads as under:- I order to release ₹ 7,00,000/- seized from the Office of M/s.JKS Air Travels as the same are not liable for confiscation under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962. 13. At this juncture, it is rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o prove that the said sum was relating to the sale proceeds of the smuggled goods, which were sold by the petitioner herein, who was having the knowledge or reason to believe that the goods are smuggled goods. 19. Before this Court also, such kind of evidence has not been produced. In the absence of such kind of evidence, the third respondent has rightly passed the order to release the said sum to the petitioner. On the contrary, there is absolutely nothing in the order of the appellate authority, either for upholding the confiscation of the said amount from the office of the petitioner or for setting aside the order of the third respondent or for rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner herein. 20. Under these circumstances, this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
