TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 3000/-; (iii) absolute confiscation of seized English newspaper and black polybags used as wrappering material under Section 116\8(b) ibid : and imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on Shri Amit Kumar Saha under Sections 112(b) and 114(1) ibid. 2. The facts in brief are that on a prior information the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted the appellant riding the said scooter, on 5-1-1998. Initially the appellant denied possession of US currency, but later admitted the same having been kept in the dicky of the scooter. Thereafter, the officers recovered 1,00,000 US Dollars in the presence of independent witnesses. The appellant could not produce any document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erving the principles of natural justice. The present impugned order is the result of the said de novo proceedings. The said de novo adjudication order is under challenge before us. 3. Shri J.K. Srivastava, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, submits that no material has been brought on record to sustain the allegation that the foreign currency seized from the appellant was smuggled into India. The statements of the appellant, even if taken as correct for the sake of argument, show that the case against the appellant is that he was a carrier of foreign currency from one point to another point within Kolkata City. The learned Advocate further submits that foreign currency is not an item notified u/s 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant's statement it was nowhere said that the seized foreign currency was smuggled. All that the appellant said was that his childhood friend Shri Kaiser Kamal told him that the currency was illegally acquired which is something different from having been illegally imported. Similarly, in the statement the appellant nowhere said that he was to take currency out of India. If that be so, it is not a case under the Customs Act, 1962 because neither Section 111 nor Section 113 would be attracted in the facts of the case. The learned Advocate submits that it may be a case u/s 8 of the F.E.R.A.,1973 and in fact the Directorate of Enforcement had imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant for contravention of the F.E.R.A, 1973 and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pleads that the said currency is liable to be returned to the appellant who is the person from whom it was seized and to no other person, not even the income tax. In this connection, he relies on the decision in Lalbour Seikh v. C.C., Calcutta reported in 1999 (107) E.L.T. 45 (Trib) ; and Commissioner of Income Tax and others reported in 1986 (26) E.L.T. 10 (S.C.). 4. Shri R.K. Roy, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue, reiterates the reasoning contained in the order impugned. 5. After carefully considering the submissions and arguments advanced from both sides, we find that the Commissioner has given a categorical finding in the impugned order to the effect that "in the absence of any specific and direct evidence about improper import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
