Court overturns Indian currency confiscation under Customs Act Section 121; Bangladeshi Taka confiscation upheld

The court overturned the confiscation of Indian currency under Section 121 of the Customs Act, finding the Revenue's evidence insufficient to link it to smuggling activities. However, the confiscation of Bangladeshi Taka under Section 111(b) and (d) was upheld. The appellant successfully defended the legitimacy of the Indian currency through credible evidence, leading to the reversal of the confiscation order related to it.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of Indian currency under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Confiscation of Bangladeshi Taka under Section 111(b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation of Indian Currency under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant contested the confiscation of Indian currency amounting to Rs. 8,23,100/- seized from his shop. The Revenue assumed that this amount was the sale proceeds of smuggled goods without providing any cogent evidence. The court noted that Section 121 of the Act requires the sale proceeds to be a result of smuggling of goods and that the sale was made by a person having knowledge that the goods were smuggled. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the Department to establish, with material evidence, that the Indian currency was indeed from the sale of smuggled goods. The appellant presented evidence, including statements and financial records, indicating that part of the money was for repaying a loan from his father-in-law. The court found that the Revenue failed to substantiate its claims with convincing evidence, and thus, the confiscation of Indian currency was not justified.

2. Confiscation of Bangladeshi Taka under Section 111(b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant's shop was also found with Bangladeshi Taka 3,32,335/- valued at Rs. 2,32,635/-. The appellant claimed that this currency belonged to his cousin, a Bangladeshi national visiting India. The court noted that the confiscation of Bangladeshi Taka did not raise any substantial question of law and upheld the lower authorities' decision to confiscate the foreign currency under Section 111(b) and (d) of the Act.

3. Burden of Proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The court examined the applicability of Section 123 of the Act, which deals with the burden of proof in cases involving smuggled goods. It was noted that Section 123 applies to specific goods like gold, watches, and other notified items, but not to Indian currency. Therefore, the presumption under Section 123 was not available to the Revenue for the Indian currency. The court reiterated that the initial burden of proof lies on the Department to show that the Indian currency was linked to smuggling activities. The appellant had provided sufficient evidence to suggest that the seized Indian currency was legitimate, including his business records and the loan from his father-in-law.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the confiscation of the Indian currency under Section 121 of the Customs Act. The appellant's evidence was found credible, and the confiscation order was overturned. However, the confiscation of Bangladeshi Taka under Section 111(b) and (d) was upheld. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant concerning the Indian currency but not the Bangladeshi Taka.

---