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 upholds order for currency confiscation, personal penalty. Appellant's appeal dismissed.</h1> <h3>Jitendra Chimanlal Thakkar Versus Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai (Airport)</h3> Jitendra Chimanlal Thakkar Versus Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai (Airport) - 2019 (369) E.L.T. 808 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues Involved:1. Confiscation of Indian and Foreign Currency2. Confiscation of personal effects used for concealing currency3. Imposition of personal penalty4. Allegations of false implication and procedural irregularities5. Retraction of statements and authenticity of panchnama6. Compliance with principles of natural justiceDetailed Analysis:1. Confiscation of Indian and Foreign Currency:The Commissioner ordered absolute confiscation of Indian Currency amounting to Rs. 20,10,000/- and Foreign Currency equivalent to Rs. 1,88,349/-, totaling Rs. 21,98,349/-, under Sections 13(d), (e), and (h) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant was intercepted at the airport carrying these currencies without any supporting documents or declaration to Customs. The appellant initially admitted in his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act that he was smuggling the currency for a payment towards electronic goods and was aware that it was illegal. However, during the appeal, the appellant denied possession of the Indian Currency and claimed the foreign currency was for business purposes, supported by a certificate from Harmit Brothers. The tribunal upheld the confiscation, finding the appellant's claims unconvincing and the certificate an afterthought.2. Confiscation of Personal Effects Used for Concealing Currency:The Commissioner also ordered the confiscation of a pair of socks, a small checkered coat, and a black-colored zipper handbag used for concealing the currency under Sections 118 and 119 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that the panchnama was fabricated and that it was impossible to conceal such an amount in the mentioned items. However, the tribunal found the panchnama and subsequent proceedings, including the verification by a Special Metropolitan Magistrate, to be credible and upheld the confiscation.3. Imposition of Personal Penalty:A personal penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- was imposed on the appellant under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal upheld this penalty, noting the appellant's habitual involvement in smuggling activities, as evidenced by previous cases of currency smuggling and seizure of mobile phones. The tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments against the penalty.4. Allegations of False Implication and Procedural Irregularities:The appellant claimed he was falsely implicated, the panchnama was fabricated, and his statement was obtained under duress. He also alleged that his request for cross-examination was denied. The tribunal dismissed these claims, citing the appellant's failure to contest the recovery during the initial proceedings and the verification of the seized currency by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate. The tribunal found the procedural conduct to be proper and the appellant's allegations unsubstantiated.5. Retraction of Statements and Authenticity of Panchnama:The appellant retracted his statement and disputed the authenticity of the panchnama. However, the tribunal found his retraction inconsistent with his earlier admission and the panchnama to be credible, supported by the verification process. The tribunal noted that the appellant's arguments were self-defeating, as he acknowledged the foreign currency while denying the Indian currency, both recorded in the same panchnama.6. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:The appellant argued that the principles of natural justice were violated. However, the tribunal noted that the appellant was given opportunities for personal hearing and cross-examination, which he declined. The tribunal found that the appellant's refusal to participate in the proceedings and subsequent accusations were attempts to evade the consequences of law. The tribunal concluded that the principles of natural justice were duly followed.Conclusion:The tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld the order of absolute confiscation of the Indian and Foreign Currency, the confiscation of personal effects, and the imposition of a personal penalty. The tribunal found no merit in the appellant's claims of false implication, procedural irregularities, and violation of natural justice. The cross-objection filed by the revenue was also disposed of.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
