1991 (9) TMI 206 - AT - Customs

Appeal allowed as currency not proven proceeds of contraband gold; penalty set aside.

RAMCHANDRA Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

The appellant was apprehended with currency alleged to be proceeds of contraband gold but no gold was seized. The Tribunal found requisites of Section 121 ... Confiscation of currency Issues Involved: Confiscation of currency under Section 121 of the Customs Act, imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act.Confiscation of Currency under Section 121 of the Customs Act:The appellant was apprehended with Indian currency tied around his waist, alleged to be sale proceeds of contraband gold. However, no gold was seized from any party involved. The appellant's defense of being forcibly taken to the Customs Office, injuries sustained, and subsequent retractions were not considered in the impugned order. The charges under the Gold (Control) Act were dropped against all parties, and the charges under the Customs Act were dropped against two individuals. The Tribunal noted that the requisites of Section 121 were not fulfilled - no sale was established, and the identity of the buyer and seller was not proven. Consequently, the currency could not be deemed as proceeds of contraband goods, leading to the appeal being allowed with consequential relief.Imposition of Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act:The penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed on the appellant was for the alleged breach of Section 121 of the Customs Act. However, as the Tribunal found that the essential elements of Section 121 were not satisfied, including the absence of establishing a sale of smuggled goods and the identities of the buyer and seller, the penalty was deemed unjustified. Without proof of any violation of Customs Act provisions, the imposition of the penalty was considered neither legal nor proper. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.