SHILLONG: The High Court of Meghalaya has ruled that the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), the Commissioner (Appeals) and the CESTAT were not justified in upholding the order of confiscation of Rs 8,23,100 and imposition of the penalty to a person in a case in the absence of any material to substantiate the allegation of the Revenue.
The case is that of the appellant, Samir Saha, owner of a small shop near Srimantapur Land Customs Station, Sonamura, Tripura, which is located on Indo-Bangladesh border.
On September 27, 2014, Customs Officers, Sonamura LCS along with BSF carried out a search operation in the shop of the appellant and seized Indian currency of Rs 8,23,100 and also Bangladesh taka 3,32,335 valued at Rs 2,32,635.
According to the appellant, the Bangladesh Taka belonged to his cousin, who is a Bangladeshi national and was on visit to India and staying in the house of the appellant during September 2014.
The seizure was contested by the appellant before the Adjudicating Authority. The Additional Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) in the order on December 17, 2015 passed under sections 111(b), (d) and 121 of the Act read with Section 13 of FEMA, 1999 ordered confiscation and imposed penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of the Act.
Accordingly, the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) ordered absolute confiscation of Bangladesh currency taka 3,32,335 under Section 111(b) and (d) of the Act.
Besides, confiscation of Indian currency of Rs 8,23,100 was also carried out under Section 121 of the Act, penalty of Rs 50,000 was imposed on the appellant and Rs 25,000 on the father-in-law of the appellant under Section 112(b)(i) of the Act. 3.
Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was rejected on May 31, 2016. Further the Tribunal upheld the order in original and the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the appellant on April 28, 2017.
The court order said that the photo copy of the statement of the account of the father-in-law, Sunil Kumar Roy had been produced which shows cash withdrawal of Rs 5,50,000 on February 8, 2012.
The adjudicating authority, the appellate authority and the Tribunal had based their decision by holding that the appellant had admitted before the adjudicating authority that Rs 8,23,100 was on account of sale proceeds of smuggled goods.
It is noteworthy, the appellant in his statement had repeatedly and specifically stated that he had taken a loan of Rs 5,50,000 from his father-in-law and a part of the money found in his possession was for the purpose of re-payment of the loan.
As per the order, the father-in-law of the appellant was also interrogated who duly corroborated the statement of the appellant. It is difficult to find from the record that the appellant had admitted that the Indian currency of Rs 8,23,100 was the sale proceeds of smuggled goods . According to the court, in the present case, the appellant from whose possession cash of R 8,23,100 was seized had evidence to show that partly the amount was for the purpose of discharging the loan which was taken by him from his father-in-law.
