9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Appeal against de novo adjudication order involving confiscation of US Dollars, scooter, newspaper, and polybags, and imposition of penalties under Customs Act, 1962 and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
Analysis: 1. Confiscation of US Dollars and Scooter: The appellant was intercepted with 1,00,000 US Dollars in his possession, which he admitted to carrying for illegal export to Bangladesh. The Customs authorities alleged smuggling under Sections 111(d) and 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the appellant's defense argued that there was no evidence of illegal importation or exportation of the currency. The Tribunal found that there was no proof of improper importation or exportation, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was merely a carrier of the currency, not its owner. Consequently, the confiscation of the currency and the scooter, along with the penalties imposed, was deemed unjustified and set aside. 2. Alleged Violation of Customs Act vs. F.E.R.A., 1973: The appellant's defense contended that the case might fall under the purview of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (F.E.R.A.) rather than the Customs Act, 1962. They argued that since there was no evidence of smuggling, the Customs Act charges were not applicable. The defense highlighted that the Directorate of Enforcement had already imposed a penalty under F.E.R.A., further supporting their argument. The Tribunal agreed that without evidence of illegal import or export, the Customs Act charges could not be sustained, emphasizing the lack of justification for penalties under the Customs Act. 3. Legal Burden and Lack of Evidence: The appellant's defense emphasized the absence of concrete evidence regarding the illegal nature of the currency and the appellant's intentions. They cited previous legal precedents to support their argument that without clear proof of smuggling, the charges under the Customs Act could not be upheld. The Tribunal concurred, noting the Commissioner's acknowledgment of the lack of direct evidence of improper importation or exportation. This lack of evidence led to the decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the absence of evidence regarding illegal import or export of the currency rendered the confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act unjustified. The lack of proof of improper activities by the appellant led to the setting aside of the de novo adjudication order.
|
