2009 (11) TMI 758 - AT - Customs

Appellant's ownership claim rejected in foreign currency export case, penalty reduced on review.

KRISHAN LAL MALL Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

The court upheld the rejection of the appellant's ownership claim of seized foreign currency, finding him guilty of abetment in the attempted illegal ... - Issues involved:1. Ownership claim of seized foreign currency.2. Allegation of abetment in the offence of attempted illegal export of foreign currency.3. Penalty imposed on the appellant.Detailed analysis:1. Ownership claim of seized foreign currency:The case involved the seizure of foreign currency from a French national, Mr. Olivier, who was about to leave India. The appellant claimed that the currency belonged to him and was stolen. However, the original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) did not find the appellant's claim justified. The appellant's version stated that he had transferred money to India, converted it into foreign currency through a money changer, and then had the currency stolen from him. The authorities found discrepancies in the evidence provided by the appellant, such as the lack of proof of currency conversion and the absence of evidence regarding the alleged land deal for which the foreign currency was supposedly needed. The judges noted that Mr. Olivier's belated claim that the money belonged to the appellant was not credible, especially given his earlier admission that the currency was handed over to him by another individual. The appellant failed to provide substantial evidence to support his ownership claim, leading to the rejection of the claim by the authorities.2. Allegation of abetment in the offence of attempted illegal export of foreign currency:The appellant was accused of abetting Mr. Olivier in the offence of attempting to illegally export foreign currency without the required permission from the Reserve Bank of India. The authorities held that the appellant, along with another individual, abetted in the offence committed by Mr. Olivier. The judges found that the appellant's involvement in the situation, including the lack of evidence supporting the alleged land deal and the discrepancies in the denominations of the seized currency, indicated his complicity in the attempted illegal export. The appellant's actions were seen as an attempt to mitigate Mr. Olivier's offence, further supporting the allegation of abetment.3. Penalty imposed on the appellant:In addition to rejecting the ownership claim and finding the appellant guilty of abetment, a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs was initially imposed on the appellant. However, upon review, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 1,00,000 considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. The judges decided not to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) findings regarding the rejection of the ownership claim but deemed the original penalty amount excessive, leading to the reduction in the penalty imposed on the appellant.In conclusion, the judgment upheld the rejection of the appellant's ownership claim, found him guilty of abetment in the attempted illegal export of foreign currency, and reduced the penalty imposed on him after considering all the aspects of the case.