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

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 1998 (2) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1998 (2) TMI 291 - AT - Customs

Issues:
1. Confiscation of seized goods and Indian Currency under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Allegation of smuggling of foreign goods and Indian Currency.
3. Validity of confiscation and penalty imposed.
4. Challenge to the confiscation of specific items and Indian Currency.
5. Legal standards for confiscation of Indian Currency.
6. Burden of proof on department for seizure of Indian Currency.
7. Reduction of penalty imposed.

Analysis:

1. The appeal challenged the order of absolute confiscation of seized goods and Indian Currency, along with the imposition of a personal penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant was accused of smuggling foreign goods and keeping them in his residence, leading to the search and seizure by customs officers.

2. The appellant's representative argued that certain items listed in the show cause notice were of Indian origin, not foreign, and questioned the basis for confiscation. The presence of individual names on some items indicated they were not necessarily of foreign origin, challenging the department's conclusion.

3. The appellant contested the confiscation of specific items and the Indian Currency, claiming the currency belonged to his wife and should not be considered proceeds of smuggling. Citing legal precedents, the appellant argued that the department failed to establish the criteria under Section 121 of the Customs Act for the seizure of Indian Currency.

4. Legal judgments such as Ramchandra v. CC and Abdul Mannan v. CC were relied upon to support the argument that Indian Currency could not be seized without proof of being proceeds of smuggled goods. The burden of proof was emphasized, and the appellant's lack of direct involvement in smuggling was highlighted.

5. The appellate tribunal found that while some items with specific country markings justified confiscation, others lacking such markings, like Zip YKK, telephone sets, and cloth, could not be conclusively deemed of foreign origin. The tribunal ordered the return of items lacking clear foreign origin markings.

6. Regarding the Indian Currency, the tribunal noted the appellant's explanation that it belonged to his wife and criticized the officers for not recording the wife's statement. Considering the circumstances and legal standards, the tribunal set aside the confiscation of Indian Currency, following the cited legal precedents.

7. The penalty imposed was reduced from Rs. 4,000 to Rs. 2,000 due to the findings on confiscation and the non-confiscable nature of certain items. The tribunal directed the return of specific items and remanded the matter of other confiscated goods for consideration of release on redemption fine by lower authorities.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with the setting aside of confiscation for certain items and Indian Currency, reduction of penalty, and directions for further consideration on the release of remaining confiscated goods.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates