TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her by appellant are of no avail as the facts are substantial different. In the instant case, it is noticed that the appellant has changed its stand regarding ownership of currency repeatedly. In his last statement dated 31.1.2005, he has not claimed ownership of the currency. It is seen from the impugned order that the appellant is a repeated offender and two cases have already been booked against the him, which are mentioned in para 114 of the impugned order. Further, it is noticed that the appellant had not challenged the confiscation per se. Further it is seen from the adjudication order that the proceedings in respect of Shri Sabir, who had apparently given this cash to the appellant and Shri Hazi Shaikh, who was supposed to receive th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s given by him during the period of his attendance in the AIU office was given voluntarily without any use of force and threat. Vide the impugned order dated 24.8.2006, the said currency was confiscated absolutely. A penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs was imposed at the appellant under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The proceedings against Shri Sabir and Hazi Shaikh was kept in abeyance till their statements are recorded and further investigations are carried out. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that in similar circumstances in case of Peringatil Hamza Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Mumbai, the following question was referred to Larger Bench: - In case a person attempted to export Indian currency outside In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seized is entitled to apply and be given the goods. 7. In our opinion, the issue whether the petitioner in W.P. 1022/09 herein, has established his title to the goods is not relevant. No other person has claimed title in the goods. The petitioner alone has claimed title in the goods and apart from that it is the petitioner who was found in possession of the goods. In these circumstances, we cannot find any error of law in the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the application by the petitioner for release was maintainable. The goods by themselves were not prohibited but became prohibited by virtue of breach of law by petitioner herein. In the circumstances, we also do not find any error of law committed by the Tribunal in directing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elonged to Vinod Kumar Saini, who had given the said currency to the applicant for being taken to Dubai. It was meant to be delivered to Rakesh. 10. Neither with the writ petition nor with the present application, any details or particulars of any order/s against Vinod Kumar Saini have been filed. It is also not indicated whether any proceedings were initiated against Vinod Kumar Saini and the effect thereof. In view of the aforesaid position and the above discussion, we do not think that the applicant is entitled to benefit of Section 125 of the Act. In our order dated 22nd July, 2013, we had noticed that there was a delay and laches in filing of the writ petition. The impugned order is dated 9th October, 2012 and the writ petition wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case may be) in that case the Indian currency can be absolutely confiscated and it is discretion of the proper officer in the facts and circumstances of the case be allowed to redeem on payment of redemption fine and imposition of penalty. Larger Bench has given full discretion to the proper officer to allow in respect of redemption fine and imposition of penalty. Each case is to be decided on its merit and therefore, two citations, one given by Revenue and another by appellant are of no avail as the facts are substantial different. In the instant case, it is noticed that the appellant has changed its stand regarding ownership of currency repeatedly. In his last statement dated 31.1.2005, he has not claimed ownership of the currency. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
