SAMIR SAHA Vs. COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short "the Act ") read with Rule 29 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, challenging the order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "CESTAT "), Kolkata in Appeal No. C/76318/2016-SM affirming the order of the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Guwahati [hereinafter referred as "Commissioner (Appeals)] dated 31.05.2016 whereby, the Order-in-Original passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), North East Region, Shillong dated 17.12.2015 had been upheld.

(2.) Briefly, the facts as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant is the owner of a small shop located in close proximity to Srimantapur Land Customs Station, Sonamura, Tripura, which is located on Indo-Bangladesh border. On 27.09.2014, Customs Officers, Sonamura LCS along with BSF carried out a search operation in the shop of the appellant and seized Indian currency amounting to Rs. 8,23,100/- and also Bangladesh Taka 3,32,335/- valued at Rs. 2,32,635/-. According to the appellant, the Bangladesh Taka belonged to his cousin who is a Bangladeshi national and was on visit to India and staying in the house of the appellant during September 2014. The seizure was contested by the appellant before the Adjudicating Authority. The Additional Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) vide order dated 17.12.2015 passed under Sections 111(b), (d) and 121 of the Act read with Section 13 of FEMA, 1999 ordered confiscation and imposed penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) ordered absolute confiscation of Bangladesh Currency Taka 3,32,335/- valued at Rs. 2,32,635/- under Section 111(b) and (d) of the Act. Besides, confiscation of Indian Currency amounting to Rs. 8,23,100/- was also seized under Section 121 of the Act, penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the appellant and Rs. 25,000/- on the father-inlaw of the appellant under Section 112(b)(i) of the Act.

(3.) Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was rejected vide order dated 31.05.2016 (Annexure-H). Further the Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Original and the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the appellant on 28.04.2017 (Annexure-J).