Page 241 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : VIRENDER VERMA 575

Government is of the view that Sh. Virender Verma and Tushar Kumar
are part of a Hawala racket and have attempted to illegally smuggle a huge
quantity of forex out of the country which was concealed in the inner lining of
the bag.
12. Hence it is observed that the lower authorities have failed to appreciate the
facts of the case in the correct perspective and ordered the release of the impugned curren-
cy on payment of redemption fine to the noticee which should have been confiscated un-
der Section 113 of Customs Act, 1962 without giving an option of redemption.
Reliance is placed on Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of
Customs (AIR) Chennai-I v. Samynathan Murugesan [2009 (247) E.L.T. 21 (Mad.)],
wherein the Honourable High Court has considered that concealment as a rele-
vant factor meriting absolute confiscation. The Honourable High Court has held
as under :
“In the present case too, the concealment had weighed with the Commis-
sioner to order absolute confiscation. He was right, the Tribunal erred.”
In a similar case Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in writ petition filed against G.O.I.
Order No. 391-392/12-Cus., dated 9-10-2012 [2015 (320) E.L.T. 368 (Del.)], while
dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner have made the following observa-
tion :
“Para 8....The investigation conducted by customs and statement of passen-
ger Shri Ram Kumar categorically reveal that said currencies did not belong
to Shri Ram Kumar and he acted as carrier on behalf of somebody
else....Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Surjeet Singh Chabra v.
UOI - 1997 (84) E.L.T. 646 (S.C.) has observed that statement made before
Customs Officer though retracted within 6 days, is an admission and bind-
ing since Customs Officers are not police officers. As such, the statement
tendered before Customs is a valid evidence under law...
Para 10....In view of the aforesaid position and the above discussion, we do
not think that the applicant is entitled to benefit of Section 125 of the
Act…….
11. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present applica-
tion and the same is dismissed.”
The High Court of Bombay in the case of Union of India v. Aijaj Ahmad - 2009 (244)
E.L.T. 49 (Bom.), while deliberating on option to be given to whom to redeem the
goods has held in para 3 of the judgment has held as follows :-
“3. In the instant case, according to the respondent himself the owner was
Karimuddin as he had acted on behalf of Karimuddin. The question of the
Tribunal exercising the jurisdiction u/s 125 of the Customs Act and remit
the matter to give an option to the respondent herein to redeem the goods
was clearly without jurisdiction.”
In light of above judicial pronouncements Government holds that impugned
forex is liable for absolute confiscation under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962.
13. Shri Virender Verma in his statement tendered under Section 108 of
Customs Act, 1962 before the customs officers has stated that the impugned
goods belonged to him and were kept in cash in India and he had requested for
delivery of the same in Hong Kong.
The Supreme Court of India in the case of Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. U.O.I.
[1997 (89) E.L.T. 646 (S.C.)] has held as follows :-
- EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  241