TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fiscation of 42 FMG Biscuits weighing 4.910 Kgs. seized from the appellant on 9-5-1996 under Section 111(d) and 111(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, USD 3250 seized from the appellant was also absolutely confiscated under Section 111(d). He imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs under Section 112 of the Customs Act. 3. The brief facts are that the appellant Shri Saleh Baginwan brought with him 42 FMG Biscuits weighing 4.910 Kgs. on 9-5-1996 and landed at Hyderabad Airport by IC 952 from Sharjah and that he had not declared the said biscuits and foreign currency of USD 3250 to Customs and walked through the Green Channel in order to leave the Airport at which time, he was apprehended by Customs Officials. Adjudication proceedings were initi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant is an illiterate and he was waiting in the Customs Hall for payment of duty. In fact, he approached the Customs Counter and informed the Customs Officer that he brought gold and US Dollar for payment of the duty and requested them for declaration form and help him in filling the same. His complaint is that the Customs Officers illegally and wrongfully seized the gold and US Dollar from him as he did not make the demand for illegal gratification. It is also seen that the appellant had an invoice issued in his name for the purchase of the gold. It has been observed that the Special Judge has erred in his judgment in not accepting the explanation of the appellant. Our attention was invited to Para 45 of the Judgment of the Metropolitan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above, it is seen that there is a categorical finding that there is no cogent evidence on record to show that the appellant concealed the gold and US $ with an intention to smuggle them. We are in agreement with the above findings considering the circumstances of the case. 5. The learned JDR pointed out that just because the appellant was acquitted in the prosecution case, it does not mean that no action can be taken against him under the Customs Act. He emphasised the point that the adjudication and prosecution are different proceedings. He relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Rekhi Road Liners (P) Ltd. v. CC, Madras - 1999 (113) E.L.T. 413 (Mad.). While agreeing with the Revenue that prosecution and adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
