Court upholds currency confiscation for carrier, not owner; Review petition dismissed.

The court dismissed the review petition, upholding the absolute confiscation of seized currency as the petitioner was deemed a carrier, not the owner. The delay in filing the writ petition and lack of ownership precluded benefits under Section 125 of the Customs Act. The petitioner's admission as a carrier, supported by evidence under Section 108, was crucial. The Revisionary Authority's decision of absolute confiscation was affirmed, emphasizing the petitioner's role and absence of ownership claims.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the writ petition.
2. Applicability of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Ownership and confiscation of the seized currency.
4. Statements and evidence under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Proceedings and findings of the adjudicatory and appellate authorities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Writ Petition:
The writ petition was dismissed due to a significant delay of nearly nine months from the impugned order dated 09.10.2012 to the filing date in July 2013. The petitioner claimed financial constraints as the reason for the delay. However, the court found this explanation insufficient and indicative that the petitioner was merely a carrier for a third party.

2. Applicability of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioner relied on Section 125 of the Customs Act, which allows an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. The court noted the amendment to Section 125, which includes persons from whose possession goods are seized. Despite this, the court emphasized that the petitioner was not the owner of the currency, thus not entitled to the benefits under Section 125.

3. Ownership and Confiscation of the Seized Currency:
The currency, consisting of Rs. 19,80,000 and 21,900 UAE Dirhams, was seized from the petitioner at the Delhi airport. The petitioner initially admitted that the money was given to him by Vinod Kumar Saini to be delivered to Rakesh in Dubai. The adjudicatory authority ordered the confiscation of the currency but allowed redemption on payment of a fine. However, the Revisionary Authority overturned this, holding that the petitioner was merely a carrier and not the owner, thus ordering absolute confiscation.

4. Statements and Evidence under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioner's statement under Section 108, admitting his role as a carrier, was pivotal. He confessed that the currency was given to him by Vinod Kumar Saini for delivery in Dubai, and he was to receive 600 UAE Dirhams for this task. The court held that statements made before Customs Officers are valid evidence, even if retracted later, as per the Supreme Court's precedent.

5. Proceedings and Findings of the Adjudicatory and Appellate Authorities:
The Additional Commissioner of Customs initially allowed the petitioner to redeem the currency on payment of a fine and imposed a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. However, the Revisionary Authority, upon reviewing, determined that the petitioner was not the owner but a carrier, thus ordering absolute confiscation. The court upheld this finding, emphasizing the petitioner's admission and the lack of any claim to ownership during earlier proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the review petition, reinforcing that the petitioner was a mere carrier of the currency, which belonged to a third party. The delay in filing the writ petition and the lack of ownership disqualified the petitioner from the benefits under Section 125 of the Customs Act. The statements under Section 108 were held as valid evidence, and the findings of the Revisionary Authority were upheld.

---