9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 896X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confiscated under Sec 113 and a penalty of Rs. 1,18,83,100/- has also been imposed upon the appellant under 114 AA of the Customs Act 1962. 2. Sh. Arijit Chakraborty (Advocate) and Sh. N. Choudhary (Advocate) appeared on behalf of the appellant Sh. Arijit Chakraborty argued that BSF officers of Amudia BOP acting on an information intercepted a bus on 20/12/2013, havening registration No. WB-25B 5282 , on Rout No. DN-35 at Tentulia Bridge which was going from Barasat to Balli. That the place of interception was 7-8 Km. from Indo-Bangladesh Border. That as per the language of the show cause notice BSF officers asked the passengers but nobody came forward to claim the ownership of two bags of while metal & 2 bags of Indian currency fou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only interpreted the statements of the interrogated persons and the documents supplied by the appellant to arrive at the conclusion that version of the appellant is not acceptable and he absolutely confiscated the Indian currency under Sec 113 of the Customs Act 1962. That there is no evidence on record that the Indian currency claimed by the appellant was attempted to be exported and the entire findings of the Adjudicating authority are based on assumptions, presumptions and surmises without any documentary corroboration. That Adjudicating authority has not given any findings as to what violation of the provisions of Customs Act 1962 has been committed by the appellant. That carrying Indian currency within Indian Territory is not an offenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained and can not make the Indian currency as attempted to be exported out of India. 3. Sh. K. C. Jena ADC (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that all the documentary evidences produced by the appellant and statements, for claiming the ownership of the seized Indian currency and its legal acquisition, is forged and fabricated after the seizure. That appellant did not come forward to claim the seized currency for five months. That various discrepancies found in the statements of persons & documents furnished have been discussed elaborately by the Adjudicating authority. That the documentary evidences produced by the appellant is only a cover up exercise and has been correctly rejected by the Adjudicating authority while ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments furnished by the appellant are faulty. In Para- Xi, on internal page - 11 of the OIO dt 7/10/15, it is mentioned that confiscation of seized currency is proposed for 'illegal exportation of goods' when such a wording is not used at all in the charging paragraph on internal page - 5 of the show cause notice dated 28/11/2014. Another dimension added by Learned AR appearing on behalf of the Revenue, is that currency brought into a 'specified area' notified under a notification is prohibited, when such an aspect has not been even touched by the Adjudicating authority. 'Specified area' specified and notified in notification No. 31/2008-CUS(N.T)dt 25/3/2008 has to be read with Sec 11 H (C), Sec 11 H (e) & Sec 123 of the Customs Act 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain Vs CC (Prev) WB (Supra) and Ekram S. K. Vs CC (Prev) WB (Supra) that late filing of ownership claim does not affect the case of the person claiming ownership. Once no other claimant came forward then the claim of the present appellant can not be rejected and seized Indian curecny can not be held to be unclaimed. Adjudicating authority may be right in his observations that documents furnished by the appellant are not sufficient to establish licit acquisition of seized currency but that does not take away the right of the appellant to claim the ownership. In the absence of any other claimant there is no basis denying the ownership title of seized currency to the appellant. Customs Act 1962 is not the statute for confiscation of seiz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of penalty under Sec 114 AA of the Customs Act 1962 is concerned there is no evidence of forged nature of documents produced by the appellant except the analysis made by the Adjudicating authority. Customs Act 1962 is not an enactment to penalise a person for forgery, if any. Secondly, it is already held above that claim of the appellant was not false in the absence of any other claimant. It is observed from the show cause notice dt 28/11/2014 that allegation of forging of documents was not at all made in the show cause notice. Adjudication order is thus also required to be set aside, as per Apex Court observations in Para-16 of case law CC Mumbai Vs Toyo Engineering India Limited (Supra), on the grounds that Adjudicating author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
