2016 (10) TMI 199

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rying Indian currency amounting to ` 34,50,000/- concealed in packs in hand-baggage. The currency was confiscated under section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty imposed on the passenger under section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. At the initial stage of investigation, the appellant had claimed to be a carrier on behalf of another individual but controverted this assertion in later statements as well as in submissions. The original authority did not find these to be acceptable and confiscated the currency without giving option to redeem them. 3. The appellant contends that, though in accordance with section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 which deals with the confiscated goods, discretion is vested in the adjudicating authority in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... seen that the original authority has discussed at length about the ambivalence of the passenger in relation to ownership of the confiscated Indian currency. Moreover, it is also seen that the impugned order has considered it necessary to examine the implication of the allegation against the appellant thus: "36. In this case, no legally acceptable proof has been produced which could indicate that the impugned currency was generated out of legal dealings and who actually is the owner or owners of this currency. The passenger has initially co-operated with the investigation but later on took a reverse summersault. The real owner has remained behind the scene and used the passenger as a stooge in the act of smuggling. The currency was....