SALEHA BEGUM Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUS. (PREV.), KOLKATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the seizure and absolute confiscation of Indian currency amounting to Rs. 1,24,200/ - as sale -proceeds of smuggled goods. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant states that the lower appellate authority has upheld the order of the original authority absolutely confiscating the impugned Indian currency; but in the order of the original authority in the finding and discussion portion, there is no finding whatsoever recorded in respect of the impugned Indian currency. I find that the original authority who passed the impugned order -in -original has given no finding as to what were the foreign origin goods, the sale of which has resulted in obtaining the impugned Indian currency. Before passing an order of confiscation, it is necessary for the Department to establish that the impugned Indian currency is the sale -proceeds of smuggled goods. To a specific query from the Bench, ld. JDR appearing for the Department states that none of the statements recorded in this case provides any evidence that any smuggled goods have been sold and the impugned Indian currency is the sale -proceeds thereof. It is surprising that when the original authority has not recorded any evidence nor has come to any conclusion regarding the impugned Indian currency to be sale -proceeds of smuggled goods, the lower appellate authority has confirmed the confiscation of the same. The appellant has taken a stand that the said Indian currency was the sale -proceeds of grocery items. The lower appellate authority has no doubt raised a doubt regarding genuineness of the cash memos on account of the same bearing numbers in a sequence and the same date, but that does not provide any proof that the impugned Indian currency is the result of sale -proceeds of smuggled goods. It is for the Department to establish that the said currency has been acquired by sale of smuggled goods, but the ld. JDR is not in a position to show existence of any evidence in this regard. As such, the confiscation of impugned Indian currency and imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000/ - (Rupees five thousand) only on the appellant, cannot be upheld and the same is set aside with consequential benefit to the appellant. The other part of the order has not been challenged in this appeal and hence no order is passed in respect of the same.

(2.) THE appeal is allowed.