2000 (5) TMI 1027 - AT - Customs

Appellant's Claim for Confiscated Currency Denied under Customs Act Section 121 - Lack of Evidence

ABDUL AZIZ RESHAMWALA Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, JAIPUR

The appellant's claim for the release of confiscated Indian currency under Section 121 of the Customs Act was denied by the Tribunal. Despite assertions ... Confiscation of Indian currency - Sale proceeds of smuggled gold - Evidence - Statement - Confessional statement - Retraction, belated retraction Issues Involved:Entitlement to release confiscated Indian currency under Section 121 of the Customs Act.Analysis:1. The main issue in this appeal was whether the appellant was entitled to the release of Indian currency amounting to Rs. 21,23,050/- confiscated under Section 121 of the Customs Act. The appellant claimed that the currency was the sale proceeds of 42 gold biscuits of foreign origin imported under the Gold Scheme. However, the Tribunal found this claim to be misconceived as it lacked supporting evidence. The currency was recovered from a person attempting to board a flight under a fictitious name, who admitted it was the sale proceeds of smuggled gold biscuits disposed of by another individual. This individual, Rajindra Soni, did not confirm the appellant's involvement in the transaction.2. The appellant asserted that the confiscated currency was from gold biscuits delivered to him by one individual for sale. Despite producing an affidavit to support this claim, there was no concrete evidence to prove the legal import of the gold biscuits or their sale. The person who allegedly sold the biscuits and the one who received the sale proceeds did not provide any substantiating evidence. Even Rajindra Soni, from whom the currency was seized, did not confirm the appellant's connection to the transaction in his statements to the authorities.3. The Tribunal noted that other individuals involved in the case did not support the appellant's claim regarding the seized currency. The lack of corroborating evidence, including statements and documents, weakened the appellant's position. Rajindra Soni's alleged retraction of his confessional statement after a significant period did not hold legal value. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to deny the release of the confiscated currency, as the appellant failed to provide substantial evidence to support their claim.4. Considering the facts and evidence presented, the Tribunal concluded that the release of the confiscated Indian currency was rightfully declined in favor of the appellant. The impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed valid and legally sound, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's appeal due to the lack of merit.