9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of Competent Authority to initiate proceedings under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 against the appellant. Analysis: The appellant, wife of a person convicted under section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, was treated as an affected person by the Competent Authority under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. The Competent Authority issued a notice under section 6(1) of the Act regarding certain properties, including a house property and a bank deposit. The Competent Authority concluded that the appellant failed to explain the legal source of a portion of the funds used for purchasing the land and constructing the house. A fine was imposed, and the house was to be forfeited if the fine was not paid. The appellant challenged this order, arguing that the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against her under the Act. The appellant's counsel contended that the Competent Authority did not have the jurisdiction to proceed against the appellant as she was not an affected person in terms of section 2(2)(a)(i) of the Act. This section specifies that the Act applies to persons convicted under the Customs Act, 1962, in relation to goods exceeding one lakh of rupees. The court noted that the mere conviction of the appellant's husband under the Customs Act, 1962, did not automatically make her an affected person. The Competent Authority failed to establish that the husband's conviction was related to goods exceeding one lakh of rupees. Without this finding, the appellant was wrongly treated as an affected person. Therefore, the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against her under the Act. Given the above finding on jurisdiction, the court deemed it unnecessary to delve into other issues on merits. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Competent Authority.
|
