Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Abdul Aziz Reshamwala vs Commissioner Of Customs on 23 May, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(90)ECC115, 2003(158)ELT692(TRI-DEL)
ORDER P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. In this appeal which has been preferred by the appellant, against the impugned order-in-original dated 3.10.2002, the only issue involved is as to whether the appellant is entitled to the release of the Indian currency of Rs. 21,23,050 confiscated under, Section 121 of the Customs Act or not.
2. The learned Counsel has contended that since the confiscated currency is the sale proceeds of 42 gold biscuits of foreign origin duly imported under the Gold Scheme by Abdul Saleem who handed over the same to the appellant as his attorney for sale and the latter (the appellant) delivered to one Dilip Kumar S. Jain who sold the same and handed over the money to one Rajendra Soni for delivery to the appellant, therefore, the appellant is entitled to the release of the same. But in our view, this contention of the learned Counsel is wholly misconceived and does not find any support and corroboration from the materials/evidence on record. Admittedly; the confiscated Indian currency in question was recovered from the possession of one Rajindra Soni on 16.5.92 when he was apprehended by the police officers at Sanganer Airport (Security), Jaipur, while attempting to board Indian Airlines flight for Mumbai under a fictitious name of Dinesh Patel. On interrogation he admitted that the Indian currency recovered from him was the sale proceeds of smuggled foreign marked gold biscuits which were disposed of by Ahmed Bhai who had earlier left for Mumbai after handing over the VIP suitcase to him containing the currency, for delivery to him at Mumbai. He also disclosed in his statement that the gold biscuits were sold by Ahmed Bhai at the shop of Shri Kashi Ram Soni, at Jaipur. On the basis of his statement, a show cause notice was issued to Radhey Shyam Sharma, employee at the shop of Kashi Ram Soni as well as to Kashi Ram Soni.
3. The present appellant had staked his claim to the seized currency on the ground that it was the sale proceeds of those 42 gold biscuits which were delivered to him by P. Abdul Saleem and he handed over the same to Dalip Kumar S. Jain for disposal. He has produced an affidavit of Dalip Kumar S. Jain to that effect. But, there is not an iota of evidence on record to prove firstly the legal import of the gold biscuits of foreign origin by P. Abdul Saleem who even himself inspite of issuance of notices during the investigation by the Customs authorities, did not come forward to corroborate the version of the present appellant. Secondly, the sale of these biscuits by Dalip Kumar S. Jain and delivery of the sale proceeds by him to Rajindra Soni for further delivery to the present appellant also does not stand substantiated from any evidence. Dalip Kumar S. Jain had not appeared before the Customs authorities in person inspite of issuance of notice. His affidavit, therefore, could not be attached any evidential value. Moreover, the person to whom he allegedly sold the biscuits had also not come forward to admit the purchase of the biscuits from him. No document has been also adduced to prove the sale of gold biscuits by Dalip Kumar S. Jain, on behalf of the present appellant.
4. Even, Rajindra Soni in his statement has no where admitted that the seized Indian currency was delivered to him by Dalip Kumar S. Jain after selling the gold biscuits, for further delivery to the present appellant. He, further in his statements recorded on 17.5.92 and 13:5.92 disclosed consistently that the seized money contained in his VIP suitcase was handed over to him by Ahmed Bhai at Jaipur after selling the smuggled foreign origin gold biscuits and he was to deliver this money to him at Mumbai. He had not named the appellant in his statement at all to whom the money was untimely to be passed on. There is no cogent evidence to prove that the confessional statements were procured from Rajindra Soni under duress or coercion by the Customs authorities. He himself has not come forward to say so. He has not challenged the correctness of the impugned order imposing penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on him. That being so, the letter dated 13.11.92 allegedly sent by Rajindra Soni that the sale proceeds belonged to Dalip Kumar S. Jain who was appointed as agent for the sale of the biscuits by the present appellant, did not carry any legal value at all. This letter was not even given by him personally to the Customs authorities. This letter is said to have been forwarded by the advocate of the appellant alongwith the letter dated 11.11.93. Even otherwise the alleged retraction of the confessional statements through letter dated 13.11.92 by Rajindra Soni, could hot be attached any credence as the same was made after a period of more than six months from the date of seizure of currency from him and recording his statements referred to above.
5. The other co-noticees Kashi Ram Soni of Firm M/s. Ram Narain Soni, Radhey Shyam Sharma, employee of Kashi Ram Soni, Ahmed Bhai had also not come forward to lend support to the version of the present appellant for claiming the seized currency recovered from Rajindra Soni.
6. In the light of the facts and circumstances stated above, we find that the release of the confiscated Indian currency of Rs. 21,23,050 has been rightly declined in favour of the appellant, by the Commissioner (Appeals). The impugned order passed by him in this regard is perfectly valid and does not suffer from any legal infirmity or illegality, so as to call for any interference. The impugned order passed by him is, therefore, upheld.
7. Consequently, there being no merit in the appeal of the appellant the same is dismissed.