2002 (1) TMI 226 - AT - Customs

Tribunal overturns confiscation order and penalty due to lack of evidence in smuggling case

PATEL MADHAVLAL MAGANLAL & CO. Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (PREV.), MUMBAI

The Tribunal allowed both appeals, setting aside the confiscation order of currency under Section 121 of the Act for lack of evidence linking it to ... Smuggling - Penalty Issues:1. Confiscation of currency under Section 121 of the Act.2. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Act.Issue 1: Confiscation of Currency under Section 121 of the Act:The appeal involved two appellants, a firm of angadias and an individual, challenging the confiscation order of Indian currency seized from their premises. The firm transported goods and money for a fee. The investigation revealed that various persons had entrusted money with the angadias. The Additional Collector held the currency liable for confiscation under Section 121 of the Act, alleging it as proceeds of smuggled goods. The Collector (Appeals) dismissed the firm's appeal against confiscation. However, the Tribunal found the evidence insufficient to conclude that the currency represented the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. Statements of individuals involved were vague and lacked specific details regarding the origin of the money. The Tribunal cited a previous decision emphasizing the need to establish a direct link between the currency and smuggling activities. As such, the Tribunal held that there was a lack of evidence justifying the confiscation of the currency, ultimately allowing the appeal.Issue 2: Imposition of Penalty under Section 112 of the Act:The second appeal involved an individual, Chandrakumar Amichand Choksi, contesting the imposition of a penalty under Section 112 of the Act. The Additional Collector had not provided any reasons for not imposing the penalty, leading to an appeal by the department. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the department's appeal and remanded the matter for adjudication. The Tribunal, however, upheld the Additional Collector's decision, stating that penalty under Section 112 could not be imposed solely based on possession or dealing with currency believed to be proceeds of smuggled goods. The Tribunal clarified that penalty under Section 112 applies to acts or omissions related to confiscation under Section 111 or dealing with goods known to be liable for confiscation. In Choksi's case, there was no concrete evidence linking the deposited currency to smuggled goods, thus negating the basis for imposing a penalty. The Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for penalizing Choksi and allowed his appeal as well.In conclusion, both appeals were allowed by the Tribunal, setting aside the impugned orders. The judgment highlights the importance of establishing a clear connection between seized currency and smuggling activities for confiscation under Section 121, and the specific criteria for imposing penalties under Section 112 of the Act.