JOYSINGH BHONSLE Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
T.P. Nambiar, Member (J) -
(1.) THE above-captioned appellants have filed the appeals against the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Indo-Nepal Border, Muzaffarpur in Order No. 90-Cus./88 dated 30-5-1988. Shri Joysingh Bhonsle was not a party before the lower authorities. He filed the appeal on the ground that he was an aggrieved person as the amount of Rs. 1,00,000.00 confiscated in this case belonged to him. In that view of the matter, he filed the Miscellaneous Application No. 197/91 praying that the Appeal No. C-456/88 may be heard along with the appeal No. C-441/88 filed by Shivaji Sargar. Accordingly, this M.A. is allowed and both the appeals were heard on 19-9-1991.
(2.) Miscellaneous Application No. 198/91 was filed by Shri Bhonsle for impleading him as a party in the appeal filed by Shri Sargar, the original appellant in this case. This application is dismissed on the ground that the appellant/applicant, Shri Bhonsle had separately filed the Appeal No. C-456/88. Thus, both the above-captioned Miscellaneous Applications are disposed of.
The facts of the case are that acting on an information the Customs Officers of Galgalia intercepted Shivaji Sargar, the appellant, on 9-5-87 and recovered from his possession Rs. 1,00,000.00. According to the Department, he gave a confessional statement stating that he acquired the money from his father, Sri Shankar Ghosh who in turn had purchased primary gold biscuits from Balaji of Bhadrapur, Nepal and sold it into India to earn profit. The Currency was seized for violation of the provisions of Gold Control Act, 1968 and Foreign Exchange Regulations Act. A show cause notice was issued to Shivaji Sargar dated 3-11-87 requiring him to show cause as to why the amount should not be confiscated under Sec. 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 and why penalty should not be imposed on him under Sec. 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. This notice was received on his behalf by Sri Suresh Bhonsle on 4-5-1988. The appellant, Shri Shivaji Sargar filed the replies. But before the same reached the Adjudicating Officer he decided the case. He confiscated Rs. 1,00,000.00 under Sec. 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000.00 on Shivaji Sargar under Sec. 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
(3.) THE learned Advocate, Shri K.P. Dey appearing for the applicant/appellants contended that the show cause notice was issued to the appellant, Shri Sargar requiring him to show cause as to why the amount in question should not be confiscated under Sec. 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 and why penalty should not be imposed on him under Sec. 114 of the Act ibid and the case was decided by confiscating the amount under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposing a penalty under Sec. 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. He, therefore, contended that the impugned order has gone outside the scope of the show cause notice and it is liable to be set aside. He also contended that the reply of the Appellant, Shivaji Sargar was not taken into consideration. It was also contended that the amount belonged to the appellant, Shri J. Bhonsle. He brought to our notice that pursuant to the seizure of the amount the officers searched the premises of the appellant, Shri Bhonsle on 22-5-1987 as on that very day he had given a statement claiming Rs. 1,00,000.00 which was seized from Shivaji. It was, therefore, contended that without issuing show cause notice to him (Joysingh Bhonsle) no amount could have been confiscated. He also contended that since the show cause notice was not issued within six months from the date of seizure, the amount is liable to be returned to the appellant in question.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.