Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Jayendra Chandulal Thakkar, was intercepted at Mumbai airport on 14 March 2006 while traveling to Doha. He declared carrying foreign currency equivalent to US $4000, but a search revealed he was carrying foreign currency equivalent to Indian Rs. 33,06,667.60, including US Dollars, Euros, UAE Dirhams, and Saudi Riyals. A show cause notice dated 11 September 2006 was issued, and after adjudication, the currency was confiscated and a penalty imposed. The petitioner's appeal to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was dismissed on 8 October 2013. His revision application under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 was rejected by the Principal Commissioner & Ex-officio Additional Secretary on 29 November 2017. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court examined the facts, noting that the petitioner failed to prove the lawful acquisition and possession of the currency. The court held that the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act was on the petitioner, which he did not discharge. The revisional authority had correctly limited its scope to legality and propriety, and the High Court found no perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference. The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
Headnote
A) Customs Law - Confiscation of Foreign Currency - Burden of Proof - Section 123, Customs Act, 1962 - The burden of proving that seized foreign currency was not liable to confiscation lies on the person from whom it was seized. The petitioner failed to discharge this burden, leading to confiscation and penalty. (Paras 1-10)
B) Customs Law - Revision under Section 129DD - Scope of Revision - Section 129DD, Customs Act, 1962 - The revisional authority is not required to re-appreciate evidence but only to examine legality and propriety of the appellate order. The High Court under Article 227 will not interfere unless there is perversity or jurisdictional error. (Paras 11-15)
C) Customs Law - Statement under Section 108 - Admissibility - Section 108, Customs Act, 1962 - Statement recorded under Section 108 is admissible and can be relied upon. The petitioner's statement admitting possession of currency without lawful authority was considered. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 29 November 2017 passed by the Principal Commissioner & Ex-officio Additional Secretary rejecting the revision application under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, and the underlying orders of confiscation and penalty, are sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order dated 29 November 2017 rejecting the revision application and the underlying orders of confiscation and penalty. Rule discharged.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on person from whom currency is seized to show lawful acquisition
- Section 123 of Customs Act
- 1962
- Section 108 statement admissible
- Revision under Section 129DD limited to legality and propriety
- No interference under Article 227 unless perversity or jurisdictional error
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (06) 119
WRIT PETITION NO. 4073 OF 2023
G. S. Kulkarni, Jitendra S. Jain
Mohammed Wasim Qureshi i/b Qureshi & Associates for Petitioner, Ms. Shruti Vyas for State, Mr. Karan Adik with Ms. Sangeeta Yadav for Respondent No.2
Jayendra Chandulal Thakkar
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the rejection of revision application under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, and the underlying orders of confiscation and penalty.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 29 November 2017 rejecting revision and the order dated 8 October 2013 dismissing appeal, and release of confiscated currency.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was intercepted at Mumbai airport on 14 March 2006 and found carrying foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 33,06,667.60 without lawful authority, leading to confiscation and penalty.
Previous Decisions
Show cause notice dated 11 September 2006; adjudication order confiscating currency and imposing penalty; appeal dismissed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on 8 October 2013; revision rejected by Principal Commissioner on 29 November 2017.
Issues
Whether the revisional authority erred in rejecting the revision application under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962.
Whether the petitioner discharged the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 to show lawful acquisition of the seized currency.
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution with the concurrent findings of fact.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the currency was legitimately acquired and that the burden of proof was wrongly placed on him.
Respondents contended that the petitioner failed to provide any evidence of lawful acquisition and that the statement under Section 108 was admissible.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, the burden of proving that seized foreign currency is not liable to confiscation lies on the person from whom it is seized. The petitioner failed to discharge this burden. The revisional authority under Section 129DD is not required to re-appreciate evidence but only to examine legality and propriety. The High Court under Article 227 will not interfere unless there is perversity or jurisdictional error, which was absent.
Judgment Excerpts
The principal challenge as mounted by the petitioner is to an order dated 29 November, 2017 passed by the Principal Commissioner & Ex-officio Additional Secretary to Government of India, by which the revision application filed by the petitioner under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, has been rejected.
The petitioner was found to be carrying foreign currency equivalent to Indian currency valued Rs. 33,06,667.60.
The burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 lies on the person from whom the currency is seized to show that it was lawfully acquired.
Procedural History
On 14 March 2006, petitioner intercepted at Mumbai airport; show cause notice issued 11 September 2006; adjudication order confiscating currency and imposing penalty; appeal to Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dismissed on 8 October 2013; revision application under Section 129DD rejected on 29 November 2017; writ petition filed under Article 227 on 22 June 2023 and dismissed.
Acts & Sections
- Customs Act, 1962: 108, 123, 129DD
- Constitution of India: 227
