TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 753
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the seized goods has been stated by the respondents to be Rs. 5,16,000/-. At the time of his arrest, the appellant handed over his passport to the customs authorities. In the appellant's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, it was stated by the appellant that the appellant was an employee of M/s. B.D. Denim. The appellant had also stated that he had made six trips to Dubai between 30th May, 2000 to 3rd July, 2001 at the instance of the proprietor of M/s. B.D. Denim and that except for the first occasion, the appellant had on the instructions of and as arranged by the proprietor of M/s. B.D. Denim, brought into India various household items including mobile phones. The proprietor of M/s. B.D. Denim in his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, however, denied that he had any business relationship with the appellant and also denied that he had any knowledge of the appellant's trips to Dubai. After his arrest on 5th July, 2001, the appellant was produced before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate and was remanded to judicial custody till 19th July, 2001. On the date of his arrest the appellant retracted his statement made under Section 108 before the Magi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 29th September, 2006 reduced the penalty to Rs. 50,000/- in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, stating that the appellant deserved a lenient view. 6. Proceedings were also initiated against the appellant under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. An order of detention was passed against the appellant on 28th September, 2001 and the said detention order was challenged by the appellant before the High Court in writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court. Against the said dismissal order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court who vide order dated 29th August, 2002 set aside the order of the High Court and quashed the detention order while making the following observations :- Assuming that by some method of prescience the detaining Authority foresaw the order of bail which was granted to the appellant on his sixth application, the question still remained, would the appellant again resort to smuggling goods into the country? It was not the detaining authority's case that the appellant was a die-hard smuggler. In fact in the impugned detention order, the detaining authority noted that : "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome. 8. It is also the case of the respondent that Sh. Deepak Dhembla along with Sh. Rajesh Gulati was indulged in activities prejudicial to law, evasion of duty and derived illegal gains. Information regarding properties owned/possessed by Sh. Deepak Dhembla either in his name or in the names of his relatives/associates has been gathered from records as well as from the report on financial investigations received from Income Tax Authorities, Delhi. 9. As per record, Sh. Deepak Dhembla is in possession of and has right, title and interest in the following properties : Immovable Properties (i) D-31, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-92 (ii) C-1107, Amarpali Greens, Indira Puram, Ghaziabad. (iii) B-110, Shakarpur Extension, Delhi-92. (iv) 238, Dhruv Apartment, Plot No. 4, I.P. Extension, Delhi-92. Movable Properties (A) HDFC Standard Life Insurance Policy No. 10335879 (B) Bajaj Alliance Policy No. 0011551356 (C) HDFC Bank, Delhi S.B. Account Nos. 5901000003233, 110240081. (D) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eate third party interest in the said property till the disposal of the appeal. 16. In the miscellaneous application filed by Mrs. Sumita Gulati, the specific statement has been made that the said property was purchased by her in 1996 on payment of Rs. 3,15,000/-. The payment was made by way of five demand drafts, the details of which are given in Para 2 of the application. The said demand drafts were drawn on Syndicate Bank where the applicant is holding joint account with her husband, the appellant, and Rs. 45,000/- was paid in cash. The specific plea was taken by the applicant in the application that she is the sole owner of the said property, thus, the Competent Authority ought to have served her with the notice under Section 6(2) of SAFEM (FOP) Act, 1976, but the same was not served. She was not given an opportunity to plead her case before the Competent Authority. There is a gross violation of the said provision as she was deprived of her property without even being given an opportunity to plead her case. The order of the Competent Authority dated 17th March, 2016 for forfeiting the said property is illegal. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 17. We ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 22-7-2002 which is impugned herein, it is clearly indicated as under :- "A perusal of the copy of the registered deeds filed by the advocates along with the letter dated 20-11-2001 shows that a plot was purchased for Rs. 25,000/- in Ramdevji Ki Gali, Takhatgarh, Distt. Pali (Rajasthan) in the name of Kamlabai from Sh. Naina Rai son of Choghaji on 10/15-10-84......." It was also recorded in the impugned order that it was not possible to verify the source of investment in the property in question. Paragraphs 23 and 25 of the impugned order read as under :- "23. Therefore, it is not possible to verify the source of investment in the property mentioned in the schedule. I have gone through the records and have taken into consideration all the facts on record. I have carefully considered all the facts on record at the monitoring stage and also after the issue of notice under sections 6(1) and 7(1) of the Act. Under the circumstances and keeping in view the non-cooperative attitude of the AP and the fact that the proceedings cannot be kept pending indefinitely, I have no alternative but to decide the case to the best of my judgment on the basis of material available on record.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me, earnings or assets, any other information or material available to it as a result of action taken under section 18 or otherwise, the competent authority has reason to believe (the reasons for such belief to be recorded in writing) that all or any of such properties are illegally acquired properties, it may serve a notice upon such person (hereinafter referred to as the person affected) calling upon him within such time as may be specified in the notice, which shall not be ordinarily less than thirty days, to indicate the sources of his income earnings or assets, out of which or by means of which he has acquired such property, the evidence on which he relies and other relevant informations and particulars, and to show cause why all or any of such properties as the case may be should not be declared to be illegally acquired properties and forfeited to the Central Government under this Act. (2) Whereas notice under sub-section (1) to any person specifies any property as being held on behalf of such person by any other person, a copy of the notice shall also be served upon such other person. 7. Forfeiture of property in certain cases. - (1) The competent authorit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not. There are many instances under which a person may claim that the property belongs to him when in point of fact it does not actually do so. It is for this reason that specific statutory provisions have been made and incorporated under Section 6(2) whereunder a copy of the notice is specifically to be served to the person who allegedly holds the property of the detenue on the latter's behalf. Admittedly, in this case, no notice under Section 6(2) of the SAFEMA had been issued to the petitioner, i.e., the person in whose name the property stands. Section 7 also fortifies this line of reasoning inasmuch as it makes it abundantly clear that before an order of forfeiture can be made under the said Section the person affected and, in the case where the person "affected holds any property specified in the notice through any other person, then, such other person must also be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Admittedly, no notice has been issued to the petitioner and obviously no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the mandatory provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of SAFEMA have not been complied with before the passing of the i....