Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11127 OF 2011

Jatin C. Jhaveri

….Appellant

Versus

Union of India

…. Respondent

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.11128-31 OF 2011

Union of India

….Appellant

Versus

Jatin C. Jhaveri, etc.

…. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Uday U. Lalit, J.

1.

These appeals arise out of common judgment and

order dated 19.10.2010 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Bombay in FERA Appeal Nos.64-66 of 2006 &

in Writ Petition No.2976 of 2004. The challenge in Civil

1

Digitally signed by OM

PARKASH SHARMA

Date: 2016.05.14

13:00:18 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

Appeal Nos.11128-11131 of 2011 at the instance of Union

of India is to the decision of the High Court dismissing

FERA Appeal Nos.64-66 of 2006 while Civil Appeal

No.11127 of 2011 filed by one Jatin Jhaveri challenges the

dismissal of his Writ Petition No.2976 of 2004.

2.

The facts leading to these appeals are as under:-

A.

On the night intervening 27^th and 28^th July, 1993, one

Ajit Dodia intending to board a flight to Hongkong from

Mumbai, had checked in a grey suitcase and a black

briefcase. On suspicion, the Custom Officers searched the

baggage and found the suitcase to be containing US $

289,250 while the brief case contained US $ 114,300. The

currency was seized and Ajit Dodia was questioned. He

disclosed that he was to accompany Jatin Jhaveri, a

diamond trader, that his brother Jitendra Dodia was

working with Jatin Jhaveri as a sorter, that his trip was

finalized and arranged by Jatin Jhaveri who had driven him

to the Airport. In his statement Jitendra Dodia confirmed

that he was working with Jatin Jhaveri and that he and

Jatin Jhaveri had packed US dollars in bundles in the

evening. However Jatin Jhaveri was not available for next

two months i.e. till 27.09.1993.

2

B.

In his statement dated 12.10.1993, Jatin Jhaveri

confirmed that he was to accompany Ajit Dodia to

Hongkong on the relevant date and that he had handed

over his suitcase to Ajit Dodia who in turn was to hand it

over to the brother of Jatin Jhaveri at Hongkong. He

however denied ownership of the currency in question and

also stated that he had nothing to do with the briefcase.

He repeated in writing to stress the point saying “It does

not belong to me”. This incident led to initiation of

proceedings under Clauses (d), (e) and (i) of Section 113

of the Customs Act, 1962 proposing penalty as well as

confiscation of the currency.

C.

In defence, Jatin Jhaveri now contended that he had

been to USA in June 1993 and had entered into contract

for supply of polished diamonds and that in pursuance of

the contract he had received US $ 289,250. According to

him, his baggage that arrived along with him on

25.06.1993 had contained US $ 254,000 while other bag

which arrived three days later on 28.06.1993 contained

remainder namely US $ 35,250. In support of his claim,

reliance was placed on Currency Declaration Form

No.100250 dated 25.06.1993 in respect of US $ 254,000

3

and Currency Declaration Form No.10763 dated

28.06.1993 in respect of US $ 35,250. According to him

the currency was obtained and imported by him as

advance payment towards supply of diamonds, that he

could not deposit the currency in the bank as the bank

had refused to accept the same and therefore he was

proposing to take it along with him to Hongkong on

27.07.1993. It was his further case that while he was

going towards the Airport he had received a message that

his mother was ill and that Ajit Dodia was intercepted with

currency and therefore he did not go to the Airport.

D.

Commissioner of Customs by his order dated

30.08.1995 concluded that the currency was being taken

by Ajit Dodia illegally. He found that Jatin Jhaveri had

played a major role and made available the currency in

question and had also packed