Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2000 (10) TMI 74

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Bombay on 27-8-96. The officers noticed that Shri Satish Kumar entered the aircraft and met Shri Bahadur Singh in the aisle of the aircraft and when Shri Satish Kumar was handing over four small packets to Shri Bahadur Singh, both of them were intercepted inside the aircraft. Both admitted that the packets contained foreign currency which was to be taken out of India in the flight by Sh. Bahadur Singh. Both the appellants were escorted to the Preventive room of Customs, Air Intelligence Unit for personal search in the presence of two independent witnesses. The packets were opened and each packet contained 27 numbers of Deustche marks of 1000 denomination, totalling 1,08,000 Deutsche Marks (equal to Rs. 24,46,200/ in Indian currency). Neithe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... angkok and Singapore and admitted that Shri Kulbir Singh used him for the purpose of smuggling foreign currency out of India. He also stated that he had met Shri Satish Kumar at the shop of Sh. Kulbir Singh in Singapore. 4.Based on the above, show cause notices were issued to both the appellants proposing confiscation of the seized currency (including Indian currency of Rs. 3100/- and Rs. 2150/- seized from Shri Bahadur Singh) on the ground of contravention of the relevant provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act read with the Customs Act, and proposing imposition of penalty. The notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner who ordered absolute confiscation of the entire currency seized and imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs eac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s for the fact that the Seizing officer Shri Meena's name was not found in the Aircraft Entry register on 27-8-96, since the register is being maintained by the security staff of Air India posted at the Entry gate, a lapse on the part of the officer making the entry in not entering the name of Shri Meena does not lead to the conclusion that Shri Meena was not in the Aircraft or that he did not intercept the appellants. The register also shows that against the entry of DRI officers indicated therein, Number five is written; that security staff had noted that five officers had entered the aircraft. During the cross examination also, the officers deposed that five DRI officers had entered the aircraft. Therefore, the challenge to the presence .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to show the same time. A small difference of five minutes in different watches is not so material as to have any bearing upon this case. We therefore, over-rule the objection raised about the Aircraft Entry register. 10.The next challenge is to the voluntary nature of the statements of both the appellants. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that both the appellants were coerced into giving their statements and that the medical examination report is clear evidence of duress by the DRI officers. 11.We have gone through the common report of medical examination carried out on both the appellants, under orders of the Court, when the appellants were produced in Court on 29-8-96. Nature of the injuries found does not suggest any beati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oms [1998 (101) E.L.T. 17 (Bom.)] and in the case of D. Uttam Chand v. C.C.E. [1995 (79) E.L.T. 588]; Charanjit Kumar v. C.C. Allahabad [1999 (110) E.L.T. 931 (T) = 1998 (29) RLT 578]; K.I. Pavunny v. Asst. Commissioner [1997 (90) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.) = 1997 (18) RLT 641 (SC)] are distinguishable since we have held that the statements of both the appellants were voluntary in nature and were not obtained as a result of force or coercion. We are of the view that evidence on record is sufficient to hold that the appellants were concerned in carrying/concealing/keeping/transporting/dealing with foreign, currency knowing it to be liable to confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962; and thus the appellants were liable to penalty und .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates