9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a poor man and had to arrange sources for filing of the petition. The said stand does not support the case of the writ petitioner but, on the other hand, confirms the fact that the petitioner was a mere carrier and there was a third person who was involved. 21900 UAE Dirhams and Rs. 19,80,000 in cash were recovered from the baggage/on petitioner in person while going to Dubai from Jaipur via Delhi. The petitioner claims that the said money should be repaid/returned on payment of redemption fine. In view of the above circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition and the same is dismissed." 2. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 (Act, for short), which reads as under:- "SECTION 125. Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. - (1) Whenever confiscation of any goods is authorised by this Act, the officer adjudging it may, in the case of any goods, the importation or ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d given him the said currency with the direction to deliver the aforesaid amount to one Rakesh, who would collect the money from him at Dubai. (c) A show cause notice under Section 124 of the Act, dated 21st April, 2010 was issued to the applicant, proposing confiscation of the goods under Sections 113(b) and 113(h) and for imposition of penalty under Section 114 of the Act. (d) The petitioner then claimed that he is a semi-literate person, who had been working in Dubai for last 18 years and had brought his earnings to India. On 2nd November, 2009, he had decided to take his life savings back to Dubai with a view to start a new business. (e) He did not realise and know that for taking foreign currency and Indian currency out of India, prior permission from the Reserve Bank of India was needed and mandated. 5. The applicant contested the proceedings resulting in order-in-original dated 29th October, 2010 to be passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi. The order-in-original directed confisc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urrency) Regulations 2000 and therefore the same were rightly confiscated under section 113 (d) (h) (i) of Customs Act, 1962 and penalty was also rightly imposed under section 114 ibid for violation of section 77 & 11 of Customs Act r/w regulation 3 (1) & 5 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations 2000. Shri Ram Kumar filed appeal for reduction of find (sic, fine) and penalty whereas department also filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) for ordering absolute confiscation of seized currencies. Since the passenger was not the owner of goods, Commissioner (Appeals) rejected both the appeals and upheld the impugned Order-in-Original. Now both parties, Shri Ram Kumar as well as department have filed their respective revision applications on the same grounds. 8. Government observes that Shri Ram Kumar in his statement dated 03-11-2009 recorded under section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 admitted that the aforesaid currency was given to him by one Shri Vinod Kumar Saini (aged about 30-32 years, resident of Joda Wali Dhani, Nawalgarh, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) for handing over the same t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rakesh and Vinod Kumar Saini. The applicant had also named Tulsi Ram, the owner of the vehicle and that he along with Vinod Kumar Saini had dropped him at the Jaipur Airport. Statement of Vinod Kumar Saini was recorded wherein he admitted that he had gone to the airport at Jaipur to see off the applicant. Vinod Kumar Saini accepted that incoming and outgoing calls were exchanged between him and Rakesh. Similar calls have been also received by Tulsi Ram, his relative. The Revisionary Authority thereafter in paragraphs 8.1 and 8.6 recorded as under:- "8.1 As per above said statement of Shri Ram Kumar passenger, he was carrier of said currency and the currency was brought in concealed manner for monetary considerations. The passenger was driver by profession. During earlier proceedings, the passenger did not claim currencies. Rather he argued that said currencies belong to somebody else. He has not claimed the currencies even in revision application. So claiming the ownership of said currency during hearing held on 13-08-2012 is not acceptable. The investigation conducted by customs and statement o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
