1991 (9) TMI 187 - AT - Customs

Tribunal grants appeal, sets aside confiscation under Customs Act due to procedural errors and lack of evidence.

JOYSINGH BHONSLE Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE)

The Tribunal allowed a party to be heard alongside an appeal against the Additional Collector of Customs' order. A miscellaneous application for ... Confiscation of Indian currency Issues:1. Appeal against the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs.2. Miscellaneous application filed for impleading a party in the appeal.3. Confiscation of Rs. 1,00,000 under the Customs Act.4. Scope of show cause notice and imposition of penalty.5. Claim of ownership of the confiscated amount.6. Locus standi of a party in the appeal.7. Validity of the confiscation and penalty imposed.Issue 1: Appeal against the order passed by the Additional Collector of CustomsThe appellants filed appeals against the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Indo-Nepal Border, Muzaffarpur. An aggrieved party, not initially involved, filed a Miscellaneous Application to be heard alongside another appeal. The Tribunal allowed the application, leading to a joint hearing of both appeals.Issue 2: Miscellaneous application for impleading a party in the appealAnother Miscellaneous Application was filed for impleading a party in the appeal initiated by the original appellant. However, this application was dismissed as the party had separately filed another appeal. Both Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of accordingly.Issue 3: Confiscation of Rs. 1,00,000 under the Customs ActThe Customs Officers intercepted the appellant and confiscated Rs. 1,00,000, alleging a violation of the Gold Control Act and Foreign Exchange Regulations Act. The appellant's confessional statement implicated his father in acquiring the money from gold transactions. The Adjudicating Officer confiscated the amount and imposed a penalty, leading to the appeal.Issue 4: Scope of show cause notice and imposition of penaltyThe appellant argued that the order exceeded the show cause notice's scope and failed to consider his replies. It was contended that the confiscated amount belonged to another individual, questioning the lack of notice to this party. The appellant also raised concerns about the timing of the notice issuance and the penalty imposition.Issue 5: Claim of ownership of the confiscated amountThe party claiming ownership of the confiscated amount did not make a claim before the Adjudicating Authority and was not a party during the proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal found that this party lacked standing, leading to the dismissal of their appeal.Issue 6: Locus standi of a party in the appealThe Tribunal determined that the party lacking standing did not assert any claim before the Adjudicating Authority and remained silent throughout the proceedings. As a result, the appeal filed by this party was dismissed.Issue 7: Validity of the confiscation and penalty imposedThe Tribunal analyzed the show cause notice and found discrepancies in the confiscation under Section 121 of the Customs Act. It was noted that the appellant was not accused of attempting to illegally export currency, as alleged. Due to procedural errors and lack of evidence linking the money to smuggled gold, the confiscation and penalty were set aside, ordering the return of the confiscated amount to the appellant.This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements, ensuring the scope of orders aligns with show cause notices, and establishing ownership claims during customs-related proceedings.