TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal overturns currency confiscation and penalty under Customs Act due to lack of evidence and procedural errors.</h1> <h3>Shri Sudarsan Jana Versus Commissioner of Customs, (P) W.B.</h3> Shri Sudarsan Jana Versus Commissioner of Customs, (P) W.B. - 2017 (357) E.L.T. 656 (Tri. - Kolkata) Issues:1. Absolute confiscation of Indian currency under Sec 113 of the Customs Act 1962.2. Imposition of penalty under Sec 114 AA for submitting false claims and forged documents.Analysis:Issue 1:The appellant challenged the absolute confiscation of Indian currency amounting to Rs. 59,41,550 under Sec 113 of the Customs Act 1962. The appellant claimed ownership of the currency, explaining the delay in filing the claim and providing the source of acquisition. The Adjudicating authority alleged that the currency was intended for illegal exportation due to lack of claimants, although this allegation was not part of the show cause notice. The Tribunal found that the late filing of the ownership claim did not affect the appellant's right to claim ownership, especially in the absence of other claimants. The appellant's version was supported by statements and documents, and there was no evidence of attempted exportation. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation, ruling in favor of the appellant's ownership of the currency.Issue 2:Regarding the imposition of a penalty under Sec 114 AA for false claims and forged documents, the Tribunal noted that there was no evidence of document forgery by the appellant, except for the Adjudicating authority's analysis. The Tribunal emphasized that the Customs Act 1962 does not penalize forgery per se. Since the appellant's claim was not false, and forgery allegations were not included in the show cause notice, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposition was unjustified. Citing a case law precedent, the Tribunal held that the Adjudicating authority had exceeded the scope of the show cause notice. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty along with the confiscation of the currency.In summary, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, overturning both the absolute confiscation of the Indian currency and the imposition of the penalty under the Customs Act 1962. The decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the allegations made by the Adjudicating authority and the failure to adhere to the legal requirements outlined in the show cause notice.
TaxTMI 