Possession of seized currency presumed from premises when no credible explanation is offered; confiscation and penalty sustained.

Currency found at a shop counter was treated as being in the proprietor's possession because the explanation that an unknown broker had placed it there shortly before seizure was found unsatisfactory. On that factual basis, the foreign currency was held liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, and the personal penalty under Section 112(b) was upheld because it was not excessive in relation to the currency seized. The decision states that currency found in a person's premises is presumed to be in that person's possession unless a credible explanation is offered.

---

---

Issues: Whether the foreign currencies seized from the appellant's shop counter were in the appellant's possession and liable to confiscation under the Customs law; whether the personal penalty imposed on the appellant was excessive.

Analysis: The currencies were found from the counter of the appellant's shop and the explanation that an unknown broker had kept them there only minutes before the seizure was found unconvincing. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the currencies were treated as being in the appellant's possession. On those facts, the currencies were held liable to confiscation and the appellant was held liable to penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The quantum of penalty was examined against the value of the currencies and was found not to be excessive.

Conclusion: The issue of possession and liability to confiscation was decided against the appellant, and the penalty of Rs. 5,000 was upheld as not excessive.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in entirety and the confiscation and penalty order remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Currency found in a person's premises is presumed to be in that person's possession unless a satisfactory explanation is offered, and in such circumstances confiscation and penalty may be sustained.

---