TAHER MIAH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, SHILLONG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appellants have made a prayer for disposing their Stay Petitions and Appeals on merits. Accordingly, I have gone through the impugned order passed by the Commissioner vide which he has absolutely confiscated Bangladesh currency Taka to Rs. 2,89,700/ - (Rupees two lakhs eighty nine thousand seven hundred only) under the provisions of Section 111(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and has imposed personal penalty of Rs. 2,500/ - (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) on each of the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

(2.) SHRI A.K. Mondal, ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue submits that the said Bangladesh currency was recovered from the possession of the appellants by BSF Officers when the appellants were entering into India from Bangladesh side. In their voluntary statements recorded before the Customs Officers, both the appellants have admitted recovery of the Bangladesh currency from their possession. It was their submissions that the said currency does not belong to them but has been given by one Firoz Miya of Bangladesh who handed over the same to them for carrying to his house at Pandavpur in India from where he would collect the said currency from them. They further deposed that they were poor for which they agreed to do the job at Rs. 100/ - (Rupees one hundred only). Shri Mondal submits that the said statement recorded before the Customs officers is admissible evidence and there was no retraction till the time of filing of reply to the show cause notice when the appellants changed their stand.

(3.) I have gone through the impugned order and considered the submissions made by ld. JDR, Shri Mondal. I fully agree with the adjudicating authority that the appellants in their on the spot statement recorded before the Customs Officers have admitted their offence and have deposed that they agreed to carry the currency from Bangladesh to India at Rs. 100/ - (Rupees one hundred only). They have not laid their claim to the currency. As such, I am only concerned with the personal penalty. Retraction at the time of filing of reply to the show cause notice in general terms by denying the allegations and by submitting that the statements were recorded under a pressure is of no use to the appellants. Admittedly, they were liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. However, keeping in view that the appellants are poor persons and were lured by the third persons to do the job at Rs. 100/ - (Rupees one hundred only), I reduce the personal penalty from Rs. 2,500/ - (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) to Rs. 500/ - (Rupees five hundred only) on each of the appellant. But for the above modification in the quantum of penalty, the appeals are otherwise rejected. Stay