LALITH KUMAR Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the above four appeals arise out of the common order of the Collector of Customs, Cochin, dated 26-11-1987 under which he has confiscated absolutely Rs. 5 lakhs of Indian currency recovered from the possession of appellant Lalith Kumar (provision of the Act not mentioned), imposed a fine of Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 35,000 in lieu of confiscation of 2086.10 gms. of gold ornaments belonging to appellants Fashion Jewellery, and imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,500 on each of the appellants under Customs Act, 1962 as well as Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act 1968.

(2.) The Customs authorities intercepted appellant Lalith Kumar on 29th March, 1987 at Cochin Airport and recovered from his possession Indian currency totalling Rs. 5 lakhs. Since the authorities had reason to believe that the currency represented the sale proceeds of contraband gold, the authorities effected seizure of the currency under a mahazar as per law. Appellant Lalith Kumar gave a statement before the authorities that the currency actually represented the sale proceeds of gold ornaments sold to appellants Fashion Jewellery. The authorities made verification with appellant Fashion Jewellery, who stated that though they purchased gold ornaments from appellant Lalith Kumar they had not made the cash payment but the purchase was on credit basis as reflected in their accounts. Subsequently, appellant Lalith Kumar on 1-4-1987 sent a petition to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, that the currency under seizure was brought from Nellore and belonged to his master, appellant Mohanlal B. Jain, who was a licensed Gold Dealer having business under the name and style M/s. South India Jewellers at Nellore. It is in these circumstances, after further investigations, proceedings were instituted against the appellants, which ultimately resulted in the present impugned order now appealed against

(3.) SHRI Krishnan, the learned D.R., referred to the reasoning of the adjudicating authority in the impugned order and contended that unsatisfactory explanation on the part of appellant Mohanlal B. Jain would lead one to believe that the currency represented the sale proceeds of contraband gold though there is no evidence for the same. Receding the binding nature of the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the learned D.R. submitted that he has no submissions to make in regard to the same.