Commissioner of Customs Vs. M. Raja - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. this is a revenue appeal, which has been filed against the order-in-appeal no. c4/102/0/2001 (sea) c. cus. no. 405/2001, dt.29-6-2001, by which the commissioner of customs (appeals) has set aside the order-in-original passed by the addl. commissioner of customs (prev.) who ordered for absolute confiscating of indian currency as sale proceeds of smuggled goods. the commissioner in his impugned order has noted that there is no evidence on record to link the seizure of indian currency as sale proceeds of smuggled goods, which are gold and electronic items. he has noted that there is no statement recorded under section 108 of the customs act from the respondent, he has noted that the indian currency was recovered from under the cot and an almirah in the pooja room, and that the respondent was working as a broker in burma bazar. the indian currency has been seized on the presumption that it is sale proceeds of smuggled goods. ld.commissioner, after due consideration of the material on record has noted that the respondent was working as a broker only and there is no evidence on record to prove that the indian currency under seizure is the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. he has noted that under section 121 of the customs act, it has been laid down that therein that the smuggled goods can be seized if sold by a person having knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were of smuggled origin and the sales proceeds thereof shall also be liable for confiscation. he has noted that there is nothing on record to show that the seized indian currency was the sale proceeds of smuggled goods and hence has set aside the order-in-original. the revenue is aggrieved and hence they have filed this appeal. as there was a marginal delay in filing the appeal by the revenue and after due consideration the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. it is stated in the appeal memo that the respondents had filed as affidavit through the advocate shri a. thiagarajan stating that the seized indian currency was part sale proceeds of the property of smt. radha (mother-in-law of shri raja), situated in 118, padyanalloor village, ponneri taluk, trivullore distt, and the said amount was given to her son-in-law for safe custody. it is stated that there was no evidence produced for such sale of the property and this money being part of the sale proceeds of the property. it is stated that the respondent has no proof that the seized currency was not sale proceeds of smuggled goods. the revenue relies on the statement of raja recorded by the d.r.i. officers and stated that the amount was sale proceeds of goods sold by him in burma bazar. it is stated that the burma bazar is a place in chennai, famous for smuggled goods i.e., electronic goods. therefore, it is stated that the ld. commissioner has wrongly come to the conclusion that seized indian currency is not the proceeds of sale of smuggled goods.2. heard ld. dr shri a. jayachandran, submitted on behalf of the revenue and ld. counsel, shri a. thiagarajan, on behalf of the respondents. ld. dr submitted that there is a statement given by shri raja that seized cash was the sale proceeds of the goods sold by him in burma bazar. therefore, as they have not produced any evidence in their support to show that it is the sale proceeds of the property sold by them, therefore the seizure of indian currency has to be confirmed.3. ld. counsel stated that there was no admission in the statement of shri raja that the seized amount was the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. it is his contention that if the sale of goods in burma bazar is of smuggled ones, then the officer should have seize all those goods sold in burma bazar. respondent mr. raja is only working as a broker in burma bazar and for which he receives only commission and there is no activity of sale of smuggled goods by him. he has filed an affidavit to say that the amount was given to him by his mother-in-law. he submits that it is for the revenue to establish that the seized amount were the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. he relies on the judgment rendered in the case of ramachandra v. collector of customs reported in 1992 (60) e.l.t. 277 (t).4. on a careful consideration and perusal of records, it is seen that there is no statement recorded under section 108 of customs act. the commissioner has also noted that the statement was recorded from the wife of the respondent who had merely stated that the indian currency was the sale proceeds of the goods sold by her husband, shri raja. the respondent was working as a broker and he has not dealt with the smuggled goods. the commissioner has rightly noted that in terms of section 121 of the customs act, it is for the revenue to establish that the currency was sale proceeds of the smuggled goods. in the present case, it is seen that the respondent was not dealing with the activity of purchase and sale of smuggled goods but was only a broker. there is no evidence on record to show that there was seizure of smuggled goods along with the sale proceeds. therefore, the ld. commissioner's finding that the seized indian currency is not sale proceeds of smuggled goods is acceptable after due consideration and scrutiny of all the findings on records. in the case of ramachandra v. collector of customs reported in 1992 (60) e.l.t. 277 (t) it has laid down that in terms of section 121 the following ingredients are required to be satisfied. (iii) the sale must be by a person having knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were of smuggled origin. (iv) the seller and purchaser and the quantity of gold must be established by the customs authorities.in the light of this ratio, the ingredients of section 121 have not been satisfied and therefore the order passed by the commissioner is legal and proper. there is no infirmity in the same. therefore, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. the stay application is also rejected and ordered accordingly.

Judgment:
1. This is a Revenue appeal, which has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. C4/102/0/2001 (Sea) C. Cus. No. 405/2001, dt.

29-6-2001, by which the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has set aside the Order-in-Original passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) who ordered for absolute confiscating of Indian currency as sale proceeds of smuggled goods. The Commissioner in his impugned order has noted that there is no evidence on record to link the seizure of Indian currency as sale proceeds of smuggled goods, which are gold and electronic items. He has noted that there is no statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act from the respondent, He has noted that the Indian currency was recovered from under the cot and an almirah in the pooja room, and that the respondent was working as a broker in Burma Bazar. The Indian currency has been seized on the presumption that it is sale proceeds of smuggled goods. Ld.

Commissioner, after due consideration of the material on record has noted that the respondent was working as a broker only and there is no evidence on record to prove that the Indian currency under seizure is the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. He has noted that under Section 121 of the Customs Act, it has been laid down that therein that the smuggled goods can be seized if sold by a person having knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were of smuggled origin and the sales proceeds thereof shall also be liable for confiscation. He has noted that there is nothing on record to show that the seized Indian currency was the sale proceeds of smuggled goods and hence has set aside the order-in-original. The Revenue is aggrieved and hence they have filed this appeal. As there was a marginal delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue and after due consideration the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. It is stated in the appeal memo that the respondents had filed as affidavit through the Advocate Shri A. Thiagarajan stating that the seized Indian currency was part sale proceeds of the property of Smt. Radha (mother-in-law of Shri Raja), situated in 118, Padyanalloor Village, Ponneri Taluk, Trivullore Distt, and the said amount was given to her son-in-law for safe custody. It is stated that there was no evidence produced for such sale of the property and this money being part of the sale proceeds of the property. It is stated that the respondent has no proof that the seized currency was not sale proceeds of smuggled goods. The Revenue relies on the statement of Raja recorded by the D.R.I. Officers and stated that the amount was sale proceeds of goods sold by him in Burma Bazar. It is stated that the Burma Bazar is a place in Chennai, famous for smuggled goods i.e., electronic goods. Therefore, it is stated that the ld. Commissioner has wrongly come to the conclusion that seized Indian currency is not the proceeds of sale of smuggled goods.

2. Heard ld. DR Shri A. Jayachandran, submitted on behalf of the Revenue and ld. Counsel, Shri A. Thiagarajan, on behalf of the respondents. Ld. DR submitted that there is a statement given by Shri Raja that seized cash was the sale proceeds of the goods sold by him in Burma Bazar. Therefore, as they have not produced any evidence in their support to show that it is the sale proceeds of the property sold by them, therefore the seizure of Indian currency has to be confirmed.

3. Ld. Counsel stated that there was no admission in the statement of Shri Raja that the seized amount was the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. It is his contention that if the sale of goods in Burma Bazar is of smuggled ones, then the officer should have seize all those goods sold in Burma Bazar. Respondent Mr. Raja is only working as a broker in Burma Bazar and for which he receives only commission and there is no activity of sale of smuggled goods by him. He has filed an affidavit to say that the amount was given to him by his mother-in-law. He submits that it is for the Revenue to establish that the seized amount were the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. He relies on the judgment rendered in the case of Ramachandra v. Collector of Customs reported in 1992 (60) E.L.T. 277 (T).

4. On a careful consideration and perusal of records, it is seen that there is no statement recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act. The Commissioner has also noted that the statement was recorded from the wife of the respondent who had merely stated that the Indian currency was the sale proceeds of the goods sold by her husband, Shri Raja. The respondent was working as a broker and he has not dealt with the smuggled goods. The Commissioner has rightly noted that in terms of Section 121 of the Customs Act, it is for the Revenue to establish that the currency was sale proceeds of the smuggled goods. In the present case, it is seen that the respondent was not dealing with the activity of purchase and sale of smuggled goods but was only a broker. There is no evidence on record to show that there was seizure of smuggled goods along with the sale proceeds. Therefore, the ld. Commissioner's finding that the seized Indian currency is not sale proceeds of smuggled goods is acceptable after due consideration and scrutiny of all the findings on records. In the case of Ramachandra v. Collector of Customs reported in 1992 (60) E.L.T. 277 (T) it has laid down that in terms of Section 121 the following ingredients are required to be satisfied.

(iii) The sale must be by a person having knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were of smuggled origin.

(iv) The seller and purchaser and the quantity of gold must be established by the customs authorities.

In the light of this ratio, the ingredients of Section 121 have not been satisfied and therefore the order passed by the Commissioner is legal and proper. There is no infirmity in the same. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. The stay application is also rejected and ordered accordingly.