2005 (1) TMI 534 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of Indian currency at Chennai airport.
2. Imposition of penalty on the appellant.
3. Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent rejection.
4. Request for redemption of confiscated currency.
5. Comparison with a similar case from the Kolkata Bench.

Confiscation of Indian currency at Chennai airport:
The appellant, an Indian national, was carrying Indian currency amounting to Rs. 60,000 for a security deposit in his employing company in Singapore. However, customs officials at Chennai airport confiscated the currency and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000, as they did not believe his explanation.

Imposition of penalty on the appellant:
The appellant, represented by Shri S.Y. Masood, Advocate, argued that the appellant, being a rustic villager and not well-versed in legal formalities, innocently carried the Indian currency. He requested the option of redemption based on a similar case from the Kolkata Bench regarding redemption fine for absolute confiscation of currency.

Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent rejection:
The appellant's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected, leading to the present appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai. The appellant's legal representative, Shri S.Y. Masood, advocated for the release of the confiscated currency upon payment of a redemption fine.

Request for redemption of confiscated currency:
In light of the circumstances, the Tribunal considered the appellants' background as rustic villagers from poor families, who carried the Indian currency with a bonafide belief for their employment obligations. The Tribunal converted the absolute confiscation into an option for the appellant to redeem the currency by paying a redemption fine of Rs. 15,000, allowing the appeals accordingly.

Comparison with a similar case from the Kolkata Bench:
The Tribunal referenced a case from the Kolkata Bench where absolute confiscation of currency was not justified when carried for a bonafide business transaction. Drawing parallels, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants' situation warranted the option of redemption rather than absolute confiscation, citing their background and employment obligations as factors in the decision-making process.