Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2023 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 324 - DELHI HIGH COURTMaintainability of Appeal before CESTAT - Baggage Rules - Interpretation of statute - Smuggling - seizure of foreign currency - legislative edicts manifested in first proviso to section 129A of Customs Act - misreading of the terms ‘goods’ and ‘baggage’ defined in the Customs Act, 1962, to arrogate the jurisdiction - proper interpretation to the expression ‘beneficial owner’ defined in section 2(3A) of the Customs Act, 1962 - failure to appreciate that the ultimate beneficiary of the foreign currency would be the Respondent herein and not SEMPL, thereby failing to notice the form and substance of the transaction. HELD THAT:- The Appellate Authority proceeded to invoke the principles of “beneficial owner” as flowing from Section 2(3A) of the Act and consequently found the respondent liable to be penalized under Section 114(i) of the Act. It is the aforesaid findings as returned by the Appellate Authority, which constrained the respondent to approach the CESTAT. While the expression ‘goods’ as contained in Section 2(22) of the Act, includes baggage as well as currency, the exclusion contemplated under Section 129A clearly appears to be restricted to a seizure of goods which are sought to be imported as baggage. The expression ‘baggage’ as appearing in that provision would necessarily have to draw color from the provisions contained in Chapter XI of the Act. In any case and once the respondent themselves had asserted that the goods in question were liable to be confiscated in terms of Section 113(d), the objection taken to the maintainability of the appeal would not sustain. Beneficial owner of the currency - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, the journey in the course of which the seizure was affected was not a personal visit of the respondent but was to attend to various business meetings and events for and on behalf of HMC and which meetings and events were being managed by SEMPL. It is in the aforesaid background that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the respondent could not be held to be the beneficial owner of the seized currency. It is noted from the various statements made in the course of investigation and the facts that stood recorded in the Order-in-Original that it was not the case of the appellant that the currency had been provided by the respondent - while appellant had sought to contend that in the past SEMPL employees are allegedly stated to have admitted to carrying currency which was utilized to meet the personal expenses of the respondent, the same is clearly immaterial since the proceedings emanating from the SCN in question stood restricted to the business travel of the respondent while acting as a Managing Director of HMC. The issues which were canvassed for consideration by the appellant essentially require us to re-appreciate the evidence and the material that formed part of the proceedings as drawn. That cannot possibly be undertaken since the appeal itself would have to be restricted to a question of law. Appeal dismissed.
|