9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of foreign currency for alleged smuggling. 2. Legal acquisition and possession of foreign currency. 3. Imposition of penalties on individuals and a company. 4. Technical violation under Customs Act and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. Analysis: 1. Confiscation of Foreign Currency: The case involved the seizure of U.S. $15,555 from an individual at the airport, suspected of attempting to smuggle the currency out of the country. The currency was found in the possession of the individual and seized by customs authorities. The matter was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, leading to the confiscation of the foreign currency. On appeal, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the confiscation. The appellant challenged the confiscation in the present appeals. 2. Legal Acquisition and Possession: The appellant argued that the foreign currency was acquired legally by M/s. M.K. Shah Export Ltd. for legitimate purposes. The currency was intended for two employees traveling to Poland for business purposes. The appellant contended that although the currency was acquired legally, a technical violation occurred when one employee handed over the currency to another employee due to unforeseen circumstances at the airport. The appellant emphasized that the currency was not concealed but carried in a usual manner. The authorities found a technical violation under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, leading to the confiscation. 3. Imposition of Penalties: The authorities imposed penalties on various individuals and the exporting company. The appellant argued that the penalties were unjustified, especially on the company director, as no extra role was attributed to him. The appellant cited a tribunal decision to support the argument that non-declaration of foreign currency could amount to a technical violation warranting a token fine. The authorities defended the penalties, asserting that the actions indicated an intention to smuggle out the currency illegally. 4. Technical Violation: The judgment acknowledged a technical violation under the Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act due to the manner in which the currency was transferred between employees. Despite recognizing the legal acquisition of most of the seized currency, a portion was claimed as personal by one employee. The judgment upheld the confiscation of the foreign currency but reduced the redemption fine. Penalties imposed on the company and individuals were adjusted based on the findings, with some penalties reduced or set aside due to lack of additional involvement. In conclusion, the appeals were disposed of with the confiscation upheld but with adjustments to the redemption fine and penalties imposed, considering the technical violation and legal acquisition aspects of the case.
|
