Currency Confiscation Quashed: No Proof Seized Cash Was Sale Proceeds of Smuggled Gold Under Section 121

The CEGAT, New Delhi-AT set aside the confiscation of Indian currency and penalty imposed under Section 121 of the Customs Act. It held that no contraband gold was seized from the appellant or co-noticees, and the Department failed to establish that the seized currency constituted sale proceeds of smuggled gold. Essential ingredients of Section 121-proof of sale, identity of buyer and seller, and nexus between the currency and contraband goods-were not satisfied. Consequently, no violation of Section 121 was made out. The Tribunal ordered release of the seized currency and annulled the penalty, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

---

---

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.

---