IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.58 OF 2008 CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.58 OF 2008 CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.58 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Customs ..Appellant. V/s. Vashdev Gobindram Adnani ..Respondent. Mr.A.S.Rao for appellant. Mr.Nilesh Bhatekar i/b.U.P.Warunjikar for respondent. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR AND CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR AND CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 3RD DECEMBER, 2008. DATED : 3RD DECEMBER, 2008. DATED : 3RD DECEMBER, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. It is not in dispute that the respondents at the time of entering into India has declared foreign currency and while leaving he was found to be leaving with the same but there was no declaration made by him. In this connection, the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record has observed as under:- " Considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. We find that the adjudicating authority has come to the conclusion that the foreign currency seized from the appellant requires to be absolutely confiscated based on the findings that the appellant is unable to justify the presence of foreign currency in his - = : 2 : = - hands. We are of the view that the findings are erroneous. The first and foremost reason is that we find that the appellant, while coming to India on 4-8-04 declared the foreign currency of US $ 81,000-00 and Euro 8600-00 as being carried by him in cash to the customs officers at Jaipur airport. The adjudicating authority has got this foreign currency declaration form verified from the customs authorities at Jaipur and it was found that the said CDF is genuine. If that is so, the foreign currency recovered from the appellant has been clearly identified with the CDF made by him on 4-2-2004. We find that the appellant was intercepted by the authorities on 20-8-2004, hence time gap, which is between the appellant visiting India and interception by the authorities, is of 16 days, which would indicate that the appellant had come to India and was going back. " 2. Learned counsel for the appellant is also not in a position to point out as to at what point of time in the past the appellant was found to have involved in smuggling activity and any proceedings were initiated in this behalf by the Department. Considering the above, no substantial question of law arises in the appeal as findings of fact given by the Tribunal is based on evidence on record. 3. Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (P.B.MAJMUDAR (P.B.MAJMUDAR (P.B.MAJMUDAR J.) J.) J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)