Concealment of Foreign currency: CESTAT sets aside Penalty u/s 114 of Customs Act in Absence of Evidence other than Statement of Co-accused [Read Order]
The CESTAT set aside the penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act in the absence of evidence other than the statement of the co-accused.
Concealment of Foreign currency – Foreign currency – CESTAT – Penalty – Customs Act – Taxscan
Concealment of Foreign currency – Foreign currency – CESTAT – Penalty – Customs Act – Taxscan
In the case of concealment of foreign currency, the Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) set aside Penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the absence of evidence other than the statement of co-accused.
The Air Intelligence Unit intercepted a passenger by the name of Mujeeb Rehman on 7.12.1994. On examination, various countries foreign currency equal to Rs.1,19,54,092/- were found concealed by him. The currency was concealed inside white cloth pouches tied around the waist, thighs and calf of the pax. They also found a piece of paper containing “ALMAS EXCHANGE DUBAI 256463256445”.
After detailed investigations, the Original Authority confiscated the foreign currency and imposed a penalty on all the 21 noticees relevant to the case. Out of these 21 noticees, 6 noticees preferred revision application before the Government of India which was rejected, the remaining noticees accepted the Order-in Appeal except Mr C. M. Abdul Razak, the present appellant.
The counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that on the very same set of facts which was the subject matter of adjudication, the appellant was prosecuted along with others for the alleged offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Trial Court on merits found no material to connect the appellant to the seizure and has passed an order of acquittal which has become final. Therefore, it is claimed that if the Criminal Court acquits the appellant on the same set of facts, the Commissioner cannot impose a penalty.
It was argued that the entire case of the Revenue is based on statements of the co-accused in the alleged offence. The appellant's exculpatory statement should have been given due credence, which has not been done by the Commissioner in the impugned order.
The trial court observed that there is no direct evidence against others including Mr. C.M. Abdul Razak and it held that the complainant (Revenue) has not succeeded in proving their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Court held only the passenger Mr. Mujeeb Rehman as guilty and Mr. C. M. Abdul Razak one of the accused as not guilty and they were acquitted under Section 248(1) of CrPC.
A two-member bench comprising of Mr P A Augustian, Member (Judicial) and Mrs R Bhagya Devi, Member (Technical) observed that any additional evidence other the statements of the co-accused produced by the Revenue other than those that have been placed before the trial court based on which the trial court has acquitted the appellant. The CESTAT set aside the impugned order only to the extent of the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
