Court Upholds Confiscation Order for Seized Currency

The court held that the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the order of confiscation of currency seized from Saha. Saha was found guilty under relevant acts and identified as a carrier without ownership of the currency. The court emphasized that returning the currency would defeat the purpose of the applicable laws. Consequently, the court directed the Tribunal to proceed in accordance with this decision, rejecting the appeal to return the seized currency to Saha.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the findings and orders of the learned Tribunal are perverse.
2. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of confiscation of the currency seized from Shri Amit Kumar Saha.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the findings and orders of the learned Tribunal are perverse:

The court refrained from answering this question, deeming it unnecessary to address it due to the resolution of the second question. The court noted that addressing this question would require a fresh examination of the factual aspects of the matter, which was no longer relevant given the conclusions drawn on the second issue.

2. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of confiscation of the currency seized from Shri Amit Kumar Saha:

The case arose from the seizure of U.S. $100,000 from Amit Kumar Saha by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers. Saha admitted to carrying the currency for delivery within the city for a monetary consideration. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) initially ordered the absolute confiscation of the currency and imposed penalties on Saha. However, the Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) set aside this order, prompting the Commissioner of Customs to file an application under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Arguments by Mr. Srivastava (for Saha):
- Mere possession of foreign currency does not attract the provisions of Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962.
- The burden of proving that the seized currency was meant for improper export rested on the department, which failed to establish such intent.
- Saha was merely a carrier, and there was no evidence of an attempt to export the currency illegally.
- Citing judicial precedents, he argued that the seized currency should be returned to Saha as no offense under the Customs Act was established.

Arguments by Mr. Banerjee (for the Revenue):
- Saha's statements indicated the currency was meant for illegal export to Bangladesh.
- In the absence of direct evidence, the department could base its findings on the preponderance of probability.
- The Tribunal's decision to set aside the confiscation without considering the reasons provided by the Adjudicating Authority gave rise to a question of law.
- The intention to commit an offense could be inferred from the materials available, and a narrow interpretation of the provisions would result in a miscarriage of justice.

Court's Findings:
- The court distinguished the present case from previous cases cited by Mr. Srivastava, noting that Saha neither claimed ownership of the currency nor could identify the actual owner.
- Saha was found guilty under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and was only charged as a carrier.
- Returning the seized currency to Saha would defeat the purpose of Sections 111 and 113 of the Customs Act and Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
- The court concluded that the Tribunal was wrong in setting aside the order of confiscation and directing the return of the seized currency to Saha.

Conclusion:
The second question was answered in the negative, holding that the learned Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the order of confiscation of the currency seized from Saha. The court directed the Tribunal to dispose of the matter in conformity with this judgment.

---