2004 (2) TMI 466 - AT - Customs

Appellant's Smuggling Appeal Rejected: Penalty Upheld Despite Lack of Forensic Evidence

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's second appeal against the penalty imposed for smuggling foreign currency. Despite the appellant's defense based on ... Smuggling - Penalty - Evidence Issues:Imposition of penalty under Order-in-Original, Allegations of smuggling foreign currency, Evidence of concealment of currency in aircraft, Circumstantial evidence against the appellant, Forensic evidence and fingerprints, Connection to the seized currency, Unusual travel route and explanation, Rejection of the appeal.Imposition of Penalty under Order-in-Original:The appellant filed a second appeal against the penalty imposed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad-II. The first appeal was rejected by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad. The penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs was the subject of challenge in this case.Allegations of Smuggling Foreign Currency:Customs Officers checked the appellant based on intelligence about smuggling of foreign currency. They found assorted foreign currencies concealed in the overhead panel of the aircraft toilet. The appellant was alleged to have concealed 6226 US Dollars, 900 Deutche Marks, and 600 Swiss France in the remaining pages of a Gujarati newspaper. The charge of smuggling currency abroad was upheld in the adjudication proceedings.Evidence of Concealment of Currency in Aircraft:The evidence supporting the charge included the recovery of foreign currencies wrapped in the remaining pages of the newspaper found on the appellant. Circumstantial evidence such as the appellant's travel route, spending an unusually long time in the toilet during the journey, and the recovery of a screwdriver handle from him pointed towards his involvement in concealing the currency in the aircraft.Circumstantial Evidence against the Appellant:The appellant's defense was based on the lack of forensic evidence linking him to the concealment, absence of fingerprints, and discrepancies in the recovery process. However, the Tribunal found the circumstantial evidence compelling, including the connection between the currency and the newspaper found on the appellant, his travel route, and behavior during the flight.Forensic Evidence and Fingerprints:The appellant argued that the case against him was based on assumptions and presumptions due to the absence of forensic evidence linking him to the concealment. However, the Tribunal relied on circumstantial evidence and the connection between the appellant and the concealed currency to uphold the charge of smuggling.Connection to the Seized Currency:The Tribunal noted that the currencies were packed in the remaining pages of the same newspaper copy found on the appellant, indicating his connection to the seized currency. This connection, along with other circumstantial evidence, led to the rejection of the appellant's explanation and defense.Unusual Travel Route and Explanation:The appellant's explanation for taking a more expensive and circuitous route to earn bonus points under a frequent flyer scheme was deemed unconvincing by the Tribunal. Traveling extra distance solely for bonus points was considered improbable, especially given the value of such points compared to the cost of the air ticket.Rejection of the Appeal:After perusing the records and considering submissions from both sides, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's defense lacked merit. The circumstantial evidence, including the connection between the appellant and the concealed currency, the travel route, and behavior during the flight, supported the charge of smuggling. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, and the impugned orders were upheld.