9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Confiscation of currency, goods, and car; Imposition of personal penalties; Redemption fines; Absolute confiscation of Indian currency; Confiscation of Nepalese goods and idol of Lord Ganesh; Contestation of penalties and confiscation. Confiscation of Currency, Goods, and Car: The judgment involved appeals against an order-in-original that directed the confiscation of Indian currency, foreign currency, Nepalese goods, and a car, along with personal penalties imposed on the appellants. The appellant No. 1, a Swiss national, was intercepted with various currencies, goods, and an idol of Lord Ganesh. The adjudicating authority had ordered confiscation and imposed fines and penalties. The redemption fine for foreign currency was contested, and the Tribunal reduced it to Rs. 20,000 based on the appellant's circumstances and lack of evidence of illegal intent. Absolute Confiscation of Indian Currency: Regarding the absolute confiscation of Indian currency from appellant No. 1, the Tribunal found that the appellant, being a foreign national, was unaware of the regulations for possessing Indian currency in India. The appellant argued that absolute confiscation was unwarranted as per the relevant regulations and should have been fined instead. The Tribunal agreed, modifying the order to allow the release of the amount on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 10,000. Confiscation of Nepalese Goods and Idol of Lord Ganesh: The judgment upheld the absolute confiscation of Nepalese goods and the idol of Lord Ganesh recovered from appellant No. 1, as these confiscations were not contested by the appellant's counsel. Similarly, the imposition of a redemption fine for the Nepalese goods was upheld without challenge. Imposition of Personal Penalties: The personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on appellant No. 1 was contested, arguing that the appellant was a foreign national visiting for tourism and had already been fined for lapses. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances, reduced the penalty to Rs. 20,000. The penalty imposed on appellant No. 2 and the confiscation of his car were contested, with the Tribunal finding that the owner could not be held responsible for the actions of the appellant No. 1, who was not accompanied by the owner at the time of interception. The penalty and confiscation against appellant No. 2 were set aside. Conclusion: In conclusion, the Tribunal modified the impugned order against appellant No. 1 but set it aside against appellant No. 2, disposing of both appeals accordingly. The judgment focused on the specific circumstances of each appellant, considering factors such as nationality, intent, and knowledge in determining the appropriate penalties, fines, and confiscations.
|
