JERAMDAS PUNJABI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE returnable forthwith. Shri Shah waives service on behalf of the respondents. Heard counsel.

(2.) ON February 26, 1991, the Officers of Air Intelligence Unit of Customs Air Collectorate, sahar, intercepted the petitioner in the Transit Lounge. The petitioner had arrived from Frankfurt by Lufthansa flight. The petitioner was waiting in the Transit Lounge for boarding the flight of cathe Pacific to Hongkong. The petitioner was questioned by the Officers as to whether the petitioner was carrying any foreign currency and on receiving an affirmative reply, the person of the petitioner was searched as well as the bag in his possession. A large foreign currency of equivalent value of Rs. 63,64,875/- was found on the person and in the bag of the petitioner. The customs Officer enquired from the petitioner as to whether the petitioner had in possession any documentary evidence in support of the acquisition or possession of the foreign currency and the answer was in the negative. The foreign currency was attached and seized under a panchnama. The Customs Officer thereafter commenced investigation and also the Director of Enforcement to ascertain whether there is any violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The passport of the petitioner was also taken in custody. Thereafter notices were served from time to time on the petitioner for recording his statement and after recording the statement, Customs authorities decided to commence adjudication proceedings.

(3.) THE petitioner thereupon approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1819 of 1991 during Summer Vacation and on May 21, 1991, Single Judge recorded a statement on behalf of the respondents that the case against the petitioner would be completed within two weeks. The single Judge directed that the petition should be posted before the Division Bench in the summer Vacation on May 27, 1991 to examine the claim of the petitioner about return of passport and return of foreign currency. The petition then came up before the Division Bench in summer Vacation on May 27, 1991 and the Division Bench directed the respondents to return the Passport on petitioner giving certain undertakings. The petition was again taken up in summer Vacation by the Division Bench on June 3, 1991 and interim relief as claimed by the petitioner in terms of prayer (c) was granted. The petitioner claimed that the respondents should be directed to deposit the entire seized currency in the High Court and the Prothonotary and senior Master was directed to deposit the foreign currency in the Fixed Deposit initially for a period of six months in a non-resident account of the petitioner on condition that the petitioner shall not withdraw the amount till further order of the Court. Before this order could be enforced and for non-enforcement of which the petitioner threatened contempt proceedings, the additional Collector of Customs commenced adjudication proceedings in pursuance of the service of show cause notice dated May 31, 1991. The petitioner was called upon to explain as to why the seized currencies should not be confiscated under Section 113 (d) of the Customs Act and penalty be imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act. The Additional Collector of customs, Bombay Shri Rajendra Prasad by impugned order dated June 7, 1991 held that the seized currency was illegally secured by the petitioner while waiting in the Transit Lounge and was attempted to be smuggled out of India. The Adjudicating Authority thereupon directed absolute confiscation of the entire foreign currency and also imposed penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/-on the petitioner. The order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is under challenge.