ALS

π€πšππ«π’π€πšπš π‹πžπ πšπ₯ π’πžπ«π―π’πœπžπ¬ (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #Confiscation

  • CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside Penalty on Customs Broker in High-Profile Cigarette Smuggling

    CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside Penalty on Customs Broker in High-Profile Cigarette Smuggling

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 03.07.2026

    CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside Penalty on Customs Broker in High-Profile Cigarette Smuggling

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    A recent decision by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Chandigarh has significant implications for customs brokers and the enforcement of penalties under the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved the seizure of prohibited cigarettes concealed within a consignment of dry dates and the subsequent imposition of a penalty on the customs broker, Shri Amandeep Singh Bagri, proprietor of Mojos Impex International. This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the legal arguments, and the Tribunal’s reasoning in setting aside the penalty.

    Background of the Case

    • Consignment Details: On 13 May 2021, M/s Shreyans Appearls & Leatherites, Ludhiana, filed a Bill of Entry for 1120 bags of dry dates, valued at Rs. 19,04,892, through customs broker Shri Amandeep Singh Bagri.
    • Discovery of Concealed Goods: During examination on 19 May 2021, customs officers discovered cartons of prohibited cigarettes (brands: ESSE, Benson & Hedges, Gudang Garam) concealed behind layers of dry dates. The cigarettes were not declared in the import documents and lacked statutory health warnings, violating Indian regulations.
    • Legal Action: The goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, and investigations led to a show cause notice against the customs broker for alleged violations under Regulation 10 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018.

    Proceedings and Penalty

    • Original Penalty: The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 on Shri Amandeep Singh Bagri under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, for acts or omissions rendering goods liable for confiscation under Section 111.
    • Appeal and Dismissal: The customs broker appealed, but the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Ludhiana, upheld the penalty.

    Key Legal Arguments

    Appellant’s Contentions

    1. No Mens Rea or Evidence of Guilty Mind: The customs broker argued that previous proceedings had already cleared him of any intentional wrongdoing or negligence. The Commissioner of Customs had earlier revoked the suspension of his license, finding no evidence of mens rea or direct involvement in the smuggling.
    2. No Specific Violation of CBLR Cited: The show cause notice did not specify which regulation of the CBLR was violated, and no penalty was imposed under the CBLR itself.
    3. Improper Application of Section 112: The penalty under Section 112(a)(i) requires a direct act or omission that renders goods liable for confiscation under Section 111. The appellant argued that there was no such finding or allegation against him.
    4. Supporting Case Law: The appellant cited several CESTAT decisions, including M/s Exim Services vs. CC, Ludhiana, and P.S. Bedi & Company vs. CC, which established that penalties under Section 112 require clear findings of acts or omissions leading to confiscation.

    Department’s Position

    • The department maintained that the customs broker failed in his duties under the CBLR and supported the penalty imposed.

    Tribunal’s Analysis and Decision

    • No Evidence of Broker’s Involvement: The Tribunal found no corroborative evidence that the customs broker had knowledge of or connived in the misdeclaration. The broker acted as a facilitator based on documents provided by the importer.
    • No Violation Under Section 111: The Tribunal noted that neither the show cause notice nor the orders recorded any act or omission by the broker that rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111.
    • Improper Penalty Application: Both lower authorities focused on alleged CBLR violations but did not impose penalties under the CBLR. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 112 penalties require a direct link to acts or omissions under Section 111, which was absent in this case.
    • Precedent Followed: The Tribunal relied on prior decisions, reiterating that penalties cannot be imposed on customs brokers without clear findings of culpable conduct.

    Final Outcome

    The CESTAT Chandigarh set aside the penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 imposed on Shri Amandeep Singh Bagri, holding that the penalty was not legally sustainable in the absence of evidence linking the broker’s actions to the confiscation of goods.

    Implications for Customs Brokers

    • Due Diligence Affirmed: The ruling underscores the importance of due diligence by customs brokers but also protects them from penalties in the absence of evidence of intentional wrongdoing.
    • Clear Findings Required: Authorities must establish a direct link between a broker’s actions and the liability of goods for confiscation before imposing penalties under Section 112.

    Conclusion

    This decision reinforces the principle that penalties under the Customs Act must be based on clear evidence and specific findings. Customs brokers are not automatically liable for the actions of importers unless there is proof of their involvement or negligence.

    The case serves as a crucial reference for future disputes involving customs brokers and the enforcement of penalties under Indian customs law.

    Source: CESTAT Chandigarh

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Delhi High Court Sets Aside Confiscation Order for Violation of Natural Justice and Directs Fresh Adjudication

    Delhi High Court Sets Aside Confiscation Order for Violation of Natural Justice and Directs Fresh Adjudication

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 02.07.2026

    Delhi High Court Sets Aside Confiscation Order for Violation of Natural Justice and Directs Fresh Adjudication

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    The Delhi High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Javed Alam versus the Commissioner of Customs, addressing crucial issues of natural justice and procedural fairness in customs proceedings. This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the court’s reasoning, and its broader implications for travelers and customs authorities alike.

    Background of the Case

    Javed Alam, an Indian citizen, returned from Dubai in September 2024, carrying various items purchased for a family wedding. Upon arrival at IGI Airport, New Delhi, he passed through the Red Channel, declaring his goods as required. The items seized by customs included:

    • 23 branded mufflers
    • 13 Pashmina/Shahtoosh shawls
    • 44 branded clothes
    • 2 bottles of Johnnie Walker Blue Label whisky

    Despite declaring his goods, Mr. Alam was detained for over six hours. Instead of being asked to pay the applicable customs duty, his goods were confiscated, and a statement was allegedly recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, which Mr. Alam claims was done forcefully.

    Customs Proceedings and Penalty

    Following two appraisals of the goods, the customs authorities issued an Order-in-Original on 15th January 2025. This order:

    1. Rejected Mr. Alam’s claim for free allowances
    2. Ordered absolute confiscation of all seized goods
    3. Imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,60,000 on Mr. Alam

    Mr. Alam challenged this order, arguing that he was neither served a Show Cause Notice (SCN) nor granted a personal hearing, both of which are fundamental requirements under Indian law.

    Court’s Analysis and Findings

    The High Court, presided over by Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, examined the customs order and found that:

    • No SCN was issued to Mr. Alam
    • No personal hearing was granted
    • The only waiver on record was a standard printed format, not a conscious or informed waiver

    Citing its own precedent in Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs (2025: DHC: 751-DB), the Court reiterated that:

    “Printed waivers of this nature would fundamentally violate rights of persons who are affected. Natural justice is not merely lip-service. It has to be given effect and complied with in letter and spirit.”

    The Court held that the absence of a proper SCN and hearing rendered the customs order unsustainable in law.

    Directions Issued by the Court

    The High Court set aside the Order-in-Original dated 15th January 2025 and directed the following:

    1. Mr. Alam must be given a proper hearing before the adjudicating authority.
    2. He may file written submissions and supporting documents.
    3. The customs duty payable should be determined after the hearing, and a fresh order must be passed within two months.
    4. Notice of the hearing must be served to Mr. Alam and his counsel via their provided contact details.

    Implications of the Judgment

    This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness in customs proceedings. Key takeaways include:

    • Right to be Heard: Authorities must issue a proper SCN and grant a personal hearing before passing adverse orders.
    • Invalidity of Standard Waivers: Printed or standard waivers of SCN or hearing are not legally valid unless consciously and specifically agreed to by the affected person.
    • Natural Justice: The principles of natural justice must be upheld in all adjudicatory processes, especially where penalties or confiscations are involved.

    Conclusion

    The Delhi High Court’s decision in the Javed Alam case serves as a reminder to both travelers and customs officials about the necessity of following due process. For travelers, it underscores the importance of knowing their rights. For authorities, it is a call to ensure that legal procedures are strictly followed, safeguarding the principles of fairness and justice.

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Kolkata Overturns Gold Confiscation

    CESTAT Kolkata Overturns Gold Confiscation

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 19.06.2026

    CESTAT Kolkata Overturns Gold Confiscation

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    A recent decision by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has set a significant precedent regarding the confiscation of gold and the imposition of penalties under Indian customs law. The case involved appeals by Shri Akhil Maheshwari, Shri Anil Kumar Yadav, and Shri Nikhil Maheshwari against the absolute confiscation of gold bars and heavy penalties imposed by customs authorities.

    Background of the Case

    On August 9, 2020, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Kolkata, acting on intelligence, intercepted Shri Anil Kumar Yadav at Howrah Railway Station. Upon searching, officers discovered a cloth belt around his waist containing four gold bars and twelve small cut pieces of gold, totaling 3,651.3 grams and valued at over Rs. 2 crore. Shri Yadav could not produce documents supporting the lawful possession or transport of the gold, leading to its seizure on the suspicion of being smuggled foreign-origin gold. Two mobile phones were also seized.

    During the investigation, Shri Yadav stated that he was acting on instructions from Shri Akhil Maheshwari and that the gold was handed to him by a person named Mr. Goldy. The gold was intended to be transported from Kolkata to Meerut. Subsequently, Shri Nikhil Maheshwari claimed ownership of the gold on behalf of M/s Pooja Jewellers, submitting jobwork challans, GST invoices, stock registers, and other supporting documents to establish lawful procurement.

    Proceedings and Arguments

    The Additional Commissioner of Customs ordered the absolute confiscation of the gold under Sections 111(b) and 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposed penalties of Rs. 20 lakh each on the three appellants. Their appeal to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was rejected, prompting them to approach CESTAT Kolkata.

    The appellants argued that:

    1. The gold was locally procured and not of foreign origin, as evidenced by GST invoices, returns, and purchase records.
    2. The minor difference in gold purity (99.6% as per test report vs. 99.5% in invoices) was not sufficient to reject their claim of lawful procurement.
    3. All statutory requirements, including documentation and tax compliance, were fulfilled.

    They cited several legal precedents supporting their position that documentary evidence and compliance with GST regulations should suffice to establish lawful ownership and movement of gold.

    Tribunal’s Analysis and Findings

    The Tribunal carefully examined the evidence, including:

    • Purchase registers and invoices from M/s Pooja Jewellers
    • GST returns and jobwork challans
    • The absence of foreign markings on the gold

    Key findings included:

    • The gold was duty-paid, and all relevant GST documentation was in order.
    • The gold was not proven to be of foreign origin or smuggled.
    • The appellants had discharged their burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.

    The Tribunal noted that the authorities had disregarded substantial documentary evidence provided by the appellants. The minor discrepancy in gold purity was not deemed sufficient to justify confiscation or penalties.

    Final Order and Impact

    CESTAT Kolkata set aside the orders of confiscation and penalties, directing the authorities to release the seized gold to the appellants. The Tribunal emphasized that when lawful procurement is established through proper documentation and tax compliance, confiscation is not justified.

    Key Takeaways for Businesses and Legal Practitioners

    1. Documentary Evidence is Crucial: Maintaining accurate purchase records, GST invoices, and jobwork challans is essential for businesses dealing in precious metals.
    2. Burden of Proof: Under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the onus is on the person from whom goods are seized to prove lawful possession. Proper documentation can effectively discharge this burden.
    3. Legal Precedents Matter: Citing relevant case law can strengthen appeals against confiscation and penalties.
    4. Minor Discrepancies: Small differences in gold purity or documentation details, if explained and supported by records, may not be grounds for confiscation.

    Conclusion

    This CESTAT Kolkata ruling reinforces the importance of compliance and documentation in the gold trade. It provides relief to legitimate traders and sets a benchmark for future cases involving the seizure of precious metals. Businesses are advised to maintain meticulous records and ensure all statutory requirements are met to safeguard against arbitrary confiscation and penalties.

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order For Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Hyderabad Overturns Confiscation of Gold and Currency

    CESTAT Hyderabad Overturns Confiscation of Gold and Currency

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 11.05.2026

    CESTAT Hyderabad Overturns Confiscation of Gold and Currency

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    This article examines the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Hyderabad’s decision in the appeal filed by Kishore Kumar Gilda, a gold and silver ornaments trader, against the absolute confiscation of gold and Indian currency by customs authorities. The case highlights critical legal principles regarding seizure, confiscation, and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.

    Case Background

    1. Seizure Details:
      • On February 5, 2015, customs officers searched Kishore Kumar Gilda’s premises and seized 10 gold biscuits (100 grams each, with foreign markings) and Indian currency amounting to Rs. 33,56,000.
      • The authorities alleged the gold was smuggled and the cash represented sale proceeds of smuggled gold.
      • The appellant’s statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act but later retracted.
    2. Adjudication:
      • The Commissioner of Customs ordered absolute confiscation of gold under Section 111, confiscation of currency under Section 121, and imposed penalties under Sections 112 and 117.

    Key Legal Issues and Tribunal Findings

    1. Validity of Seizure (Section 110)

    • The Customs Act requires the proper officer to have “reason to believe” before seizing goods.
    • The Tribunal found no independent reasons recorded prior to seizure, only a general statement in the panchanama.
    • Citing Delhi High Court precedents, the Tribunal held that failure to record reasons vitiates the seizure and subsequent proceedings.

    2. Burden of Proof (Section 123)

    • Section 123 shifts the burden to the person from whom goods are seized, but only if the initial seizure is valid.
    • Since the seizure was not valid, the burden did not shift to the appellant.
    • The appellant explained the gold was purchased locally, and no evidence of smuggling was established.

    3. Foreign Markings as Evidence of Smuggling

    • The Tribunal emphasized that foreign markings alone do not prove smuggling.
    • Gold circulates in the domestic market and may bear foreign inscriptions even when legally acquired.
    • No investigation established the origin of the gold or any link to smuggling.

    4. Reliance on Retracted Confessional Statement

    • The Tribunal noted that a retracted confession cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by independent evidence.
    • No such corroboration existed in this case.

    5. Confiscation Without Specifying Clause (Section 111)

    • The order did not specify which clause of Section 111 applied.
    • Supreme Court and Tribunal precedents require clear specification; failure to do so is a serious defect.

    6. Absolute Confiscation vs. Redemption (Section 125)

    • Gold is a restricted, not prohibited, item.
    • The Tribunal held that absolute confiscation is not justified; redemption should be offered unless exceptional circumstances exist.

    7. Confiscation of Currency (Section 121)

    • The Department must prove the cash represents sale proceeds of smuggled goods.
    • No evidence established a nexus between the seized cash and smuggled gold.
    • Confiscation of currency was deemed unsustainable.

    8. Penalty Imposition (Section 112)

    • Penalty provisions must be strictly interpreted and cannot be invoked without clear findings.
    • No evidence of conscious involvement in smuggling; penalty was not sustainable.

    Tribunal’s Decision

    • The Tribunal set aside the confiscation and penalties, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.
    • The decision reinforces the importance of procedural safeguards, evidentiary standards, and strict interpretation of penalty provisions under customs law.

    Conclusion

    This case underscores the necessity for customs authorities to follow due process, record valid reasons for seizure, and provide clear evidence before imposing confiscation and penalties. The Tribunal’s ruling serves as a precedent for similar cases, ensuring protection of traders’ rights and adherence to legal standards.

    Source: CESTAT Hyderabad

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Madras High Court Quashes Customs Confiscation Order for Violating Natural Justice Principles

    Madras High Court Quashes Customs Confiscation Order for Violating Natural Justice Principles

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 28.03.2026

    Madras High Court Quashes Customs Confiscation Order for Violating Natural Justice Principles

    Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha
    Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

    This Article has been written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-BALLB & LLM (Constitutional Law) based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email idΒ intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    The Madras High Court, in its judgment dated February 20, 2026, delivered by Honourable, quashed the impugned confiscation order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Group 5), Chennai, in the case of M/s. ​ Hiseins Exim vs. ​ The Additional Commissioner of Customs (Group 5) [WP No. ​ 35884 of 2024]. ​ The court held that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandatory provisions of Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​

    Background of the Case

    The petitioner, M/s. ​ Hiseins Exim, challenged the confiscation order (Original No. ​ 109886/2024/Gr5 dated October 17, 2024) issued by the respondent, the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. The petitioner argued that the order was passed without issuing a mandatory show cause notice or affording an opportunity for a personal hearing, as required under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ The petitioner contended that this was a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. ​

    The petitioner further stated that while they had submitted a letter on September 14, 2023, waiving the issuance of a show cause notice and personal hearing, this waiver was only intended to expedite the re-export of goods and did not apply to the confiscation of goods. ​ The petitioner argued that the confiscation order caused serious civil consequences, and therefore, the issuance of a show cause notice and personal hearing was mandatory. ​

    Respondent’s Arguments

    The respondent, represented by the standing counsel, argued that the petitioner had voluntarily waived the issuance of a show cause notice and personal hearing through their letter dated September 14, 2023. ​ The respondent contended that this waiver applied to both Section 28 and Section 124 of the Customs Act. ​ Furthermore, the respondent argued that the petitioner had the option to file a statutory appeal before the competent appellate authority, making the writ petition non-maintainable. ​

    The respondent also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vs. Virgo Steels [2002 (141) E.L.T. ​ 598 (S.C.)], which held that the right to a show cause notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act could be waived by the concerned party. ​

    Court’s Observations

    Justice analyzed the provisions of Sections 28 and 124 of the Customs Act and emphasized the distinction between the two. ​ The court observed that:

    1. Section 28 of the Customs Act deals with the recovery of duties not levied, short levied, or erroneously refunded. ​ A show cause notice under this section can be waived if the concerned party voluntarily relinquishes their right to it. ​
    2. Section 124 of the Customs Act, however, mandates the issuance of a show cause notice and the provision of a reasonable opportunity for a hearing before confiscating goods or imposing penalties. ​ This requirement is essential to uphold the principles of natural justice and cannot be waived through pre-printed forms or under pressure. ​

    The court further noted that the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties under Section 124 of the Customs Act have serious civil consequences for the importer/exporter. ​ Therefore, the issuance of a show cause notice and the provision of a personal hearing are mandatory and cannot be waived. ​

    Key Judgments Referenced ​

    The court referred to several landmark judgments to support its decision:

    1. Salmag Enterprises vs. Additional Commissioner of Customs (Adj), Tuticorin [2021 (378) E.L.T. ​ 415 (Mad.) ​]: The Madras High Court held that the issuance of a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act is mandatory, even if the importer/exporter had earlier agreed to waive it. ​
    2. Shiv Shakti Trading Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) [2016 (336) E.L.T. ​ 415 (Del)]: The Delhi High Court ruled that in cases involving serious offenses or high stakes, the issuance of a show cause notice cannot be waived. ​
    3. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. vs. Dy. ​ Commissioner of C. Ex ​., Gauhati [2015 (320) E.L.T. ​ 3 (S.C.)]: The Supreme Court emphasized that the validity of an order must be assessed based on the principle of β€œprejudice” and the test of fair hearing. ​
    4. Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association vs. Design ​ated Authority and Others [2011 (2) SCC 258]: The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard before passing orders that have adverse consequences. ​

    Court’s Decision

    The Madras High Court concluded that the impugned confiscation order was invalid as it was passed without issuing a mandatory show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act and without affording the petitioner a personal hearing. ​ The court held that the respondent’s actions violated the principles of natural justice and quashed the impugned order. ​

    Directions to the Respondent

    The court granted liberty to the respondent to initiate fresh proceedings for the confiscation of goods, recovery of differential customs duty, and imposition of penalties. ​ However, the court directed the respondent to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner under Section 124 of the Customs Act and follow the due procedure established by law, ensuring adherence to the principles of natural justice. ​

    Conclusion

    This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and the mandatory provisions of the Customs Act, particularly Section 124, which requires the issuance of a show cause notice and a reasonable opportunity for a hearing before confiscating goods or imposing penalties. ​ The decision serves as a reminder to authorities to ensure compliance with legal procedures to protect the rights of importers and exporters.

    Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

    Source: Madras High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Kolkata Quashes Confiscation of β‚Ή15 Lakh Cash

    CESTAT Kolkata Quashes Confiscation of β‚Ή15 Lakh Cash

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 16.09.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Quashes Confiscation of β‚Ή15 Lakh Cash​ ​

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    In a landmark decision, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has ruled in favor of the appellant, Appellant in a case involving the confiscation of Indian currency worth Rs. 15,00,000 and the imposition of a penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble, Member (Judicial), on September 15, 2025, sets a significant precedent in cases involving alleged illegal currency transportation.

    Background of the Case

    The case originated from an incident on November 20, 2019, when Indian currency amounting to Rs. ​ 15,00,000 was seized from Appellant near Rabindranagar, Tripura, by a joint team of Customs Preventive Force and BSF personnel. The authorities alleged that the currency was intended for illegal export to Bangladesh through the unfenced border area. ​ Subsequently, Appellant claimed ownership of the seized currency, explaining its legitimate source.

    A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant, citing contradictory statements about the location and circumstances of the seizure. ​ While one part of the notice stated that the currency was recovered near the unfenced border area at 17:45 hours, another part mentioned that a person was apprehended moving suspiciously toward the border at 18:40 hours. ​ These inconsistencies formed the crux of the appellant’s defense.

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com