2025 (3) TMI 857 - AT - Customs

Currency seizure overturned as Revenue fails to prove connection between cash and gold smuggling under Section 121

KV Kunhimohammed, Khairudheen. V., Jamsheer. P.T. Versus The Commissioner of Customs, (Preventive), Kochi

KV Kunhimohammed, Khairudheen. V., Jamsheer. P.T. Versus The Commissioner of Customs, (Preventive), Kochi - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary issue considered in this judgment was whether the Indian currency amounting to Rs.1.29 crores seized from four individuals on a train was the sale proceeds of smuggled gold and thus liable for confiscation under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962. The related question was whether penalties imposed on the individuals and an alleged accomplice, Shri K.V. Kunhimohammed, were justified.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant legal framework and precedents:The legal framework primarily involved Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows for the confiscation of sale proceeds from smuggled goods. The burden of proof lies with the Revenue to establish a connection between the seized currency and smuggled goods. Several precedents were cited by both parties, emphasizing the necessity for the Revenue to provide substantial evidence to support claims of smuggling and illicit proceeds.Court's interpretation and reasoning:The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had acknowledged the lack of direct evidence linking the seized currency to smuggled gold. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for the Revenue to prove the connection between the currency and smuggled goods, which was not sufficiently demonstrated in this case. The Tribunal referred to the principle of 'preponderance of probability' but found that the evidence presented did not meet even this standard.Key evidence and findings:The evidence included the seizure of Rs.1.29 crores in Indian currency from four individuals, statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, and paper slips with writings in Tamil. The individuals initially admitted the currency was from smuggled gold but later retracted their statements, claiming duress. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to trace or present the person who allegedly handed over the currency, nor did it establish the smuggling of gold into India.Application of law to facts:The Tribunal applied Section 121 of the Customs Act, emphasizing the need for the Revenue to establish a clear link between the seized currency and smuggled goods. The Tribunal found that the Revenue did not meet this burden of proof, as the evidence was insufficient to establish the currency as proceeds from smuggled gold.Treatment of competing arguments:The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides. The appellants argued that the Revenue did not provide sufficient evidence, and the initial statements were retracted. The Revenue argued that the circumstantial evidence and the modus operandi suggested the currency was from smuggled gold. The Tribunal sided with the appellants, finding the evidence inadequate to support the Revenue's claims.Conclusions:The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue failed to establish that the seized currency was the sale proceeds of smuggled gold. Consequently, the confiscation of the currency and the penalties imposed were not justified.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSCore principles established:The Tribunal reaffirmed the principle that the burden of proof lies with the Revenue to establish a connection between seized currency and smuggled goods. The requirement for substantial evidence was emphasized, and mere suspicion or circumstantial evidence was deemed insufficient.Final determinations on each issue:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals and ordering the release of the seized currency to Shri K.V. Kunhimohammed. The penalties imposed on the appellants were also annulled.