No Document to Prove Discharge of Customs Duty Liability for Foreign Currency: CESTAT decides Foreign Currency as Smuggled even though not Recovered from Customs Area

The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), that the seized gold is of smuggled nature even though they were not recovered from the customs area as no document was produced to prove discharge of customs duty liability for gold.

The officers of Directorate of Revenue (DRI) got the specific intelligence about two passengers, Deepak Batra and Shefali Batrato fly with Thai Airways from New Delhi to Bangkok with foreign currency valued at around Rs. 1 crore approximately by way of concealment of their baggage.

Observing all the appellants to be the habitual offenders for exporting foreign currency and illegally importing gold with an intent to evade the payment customs duty that the penalty was also proposed on all of them under Section 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.

It was submitted by the appellants that they have falsely been involved merely based on the statement given by Deepak Batra and Amar Punjabi, driver of Deepak Batra. Despite the repeated requests, no opportunity to cross examine both of them was ever given to the appellants. The order under challenge is alleged to be illegal on this score itself.

It was further submitted that the goods recovered from the appellants premises were never seized on the allegations of being the proceeds of illegal imports, no seizure memo was ever issued as stands established from the Panchanama, confiscation thereof is absolutely illegal. The currency recovered from the residential premises of the appellant is wrongly held to be the sale proceeds of smuggled goods.

The Department on the other hand contended that all the appellants in their statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 have specifically admitted the entire modus operandi of illegally getting the foreign currency and for illegally importing gold from foreign countries to India and the request for cross-examination of Deepak Batra whose deposition was fully admitted by the appellants was rightly been denied by the adjudicating authority below.

The Tribunal of Dr Rachna Gupta, Judicial Member observed that “The appellants could not produce any document about discharging their customs duty liability. Accordingly, its stands sufficiently proved that appellants have been procuring gold in sheer violation of the Customs Act and the gold so procured by them has passed the customs area in a concealed manner without payment of customs duty which is sufficient to hold that appellants were involved in smuggling of gold.”

“The said currency was mentioned to be handed over to him by three of the appellants which stands proved from the document recovered from the premises of the appellants. Resultantly, irrespective, the currency/gold were not recovered from the customs area, the trading thereof is definitely in violation of the Customs Act and the goods are definitely the smuggled goods” the Bench concluded.

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