TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 896X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Adjudicating authority is liable to be set aside. Ownership claim of appellant - appellant has claimed the ownership of seized Indian currency, though belatedly, alongwith the source of licit acquisition of the same - Held that: - In the light of legal proposition of law & absence of any other claimant it is held that appellant is the rightful owner of the seized Indian currency. There is no evidence on record that seized currency was meant to be exported out of India - It is not established by the department that documents produced by appellant are forged & fabricated when the persons giving these evidences have confirmed the authentically of the documents by giving Sec 108 statements before the investigation. Further, there is no evidence on record that seized Indian currency was attempted to be exported out of India by the appellant. Accordingly absolute confiscation of the seized currency of ₹ 59, 41,550/ is set aside and is ordered to be released to the appellant. Imposition of penalty u/s 114 AA of the Customs Act 1962 - Held that: - there is no evidence of forged nature of documents produced by the appellant except the analysis made by the Adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined the source of currency he claimed and also gave the reasons as to why he was late in claiming ownership. Learned Advocate made the bench go through his statement reproduced in the show cause notice. That all the persons disclosed by the appellant in his statement were summoned and all of them corroborated the statement dt 1/4/14 of the appellant except minor discrepancies. Learned Advocate made the bench go through internal pages 3 4 of the show cause notice dt 28/11/14 where the statements of all persons interrogated have been recorded. Learned Advocate also argued that though the Indian currency of ₹ 59, 41,550/- was seized under Sec 121, as sale proceeds of smuggled goods, but confiscation was proposed under Sec 113 of the Customs Act 1962 without specifying the subsection under which confiscation is proposed. Case of the Appellant is that Adjudicating authority has 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 absolutely confiscating the goods and imposition of penalty. It was also argued by the Learned Advocate that area of 50Km from the border has been notified as specified area under Sec 11 H (c) of the Customs Act 1962 read with notification No. 31/2008-Cus(NT) dt 25/03/2008. That export of Indian currency is prohibited was brought into specified area . Learned AR defended the OIO dt 1/10/2015 passed by the Adjudicating authority. 4. Heard both sides perused the case records. The issues involved in the present proceeding are. (i) Whether absolute confiscation of ₹ 59,41,550/- Indian currency has been correctly made by the Adjudicating authority under Sec 113 of the Customs Act 1962, by rejecting the claim of the appellant? (ii) whether penalty has been correctly imposed upon the appellant under Sec 114 AA of the Customs Act 1962 for making a false claim submitting forg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ip of seized Indian currency, though belatedly, alongwith the source of licit acquisition of the same. Adjudicating authority in the last Para of discussion finding also held that since no claimant has come forward the seized goods were designed to be illegally exported out of the country. Such an allegation is not contained in the show cause notice. It has been held by this bench in the case of Md. Bellal Hossain 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 seized currency only on the reason that leg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
