Confiscation of currency as smuggled-gold sale proceeds requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion alone is insufficient.

Confiscation of Indian currency as alleged sale proceeds of smuggled gold under section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 was unsustainable because the material on record did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the currency represented such proceeds. Suspicion and incomplete circumstantial evidence were held insufficient to justify confiscation, and the benefit of doubt went to the appellants. The confiscation order was therefore set aside and the appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of Indian currency as the alleged sale proceeds of smuggled gold under section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable.

Analysis: The available material, taken either separately or cumulatively, did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the currency represented the sale proceeds of smuggled gold. The surrounding circumstances and inferred suspicion were held insufficient to sustain confiscation when subjected to close scrutiny. The appellants were therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the Indian currency under section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be sustained and the appeal was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The order of confiscation of the Indian currency was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation under section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires proof that the currency is the sale proceeds of smuggled goods, and suspicion or incomplete circumstantial evidence is insufficient where the issue must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

---