2005 (9) TMI 361 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Regulation 7(4) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Imports of Currency) Regulations, 2000 regarding confiscation of currency seized from the appellant.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute over the interpretation of Regulation 7(4) of the FEM (E & I) Regulations, focusing on the confiscation of foreign and Indian currency seized from the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation based on an interpretation that restricted the appellant from taking out accumulated unspent foreign currency, contrary to the appellant's argument that the currency was legally acquired on previous visits. The Commissioner found the appellant guilty of attempting to smuggle out the foreign currency, leading to the appeal.

The key issue revolved around the factual findings and interpretation of the law. The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged that the appellant was intercepted before reaching the Customs counter, thus unable to declare the currency, absolving him of misdeclaration under the Customs Act. However, the Commissioner's decision on the appellant's attempt to smuggle out currency appeared contradictory to the factual findings. The judgment referenced legal principles distinguishing preparation from attempt, emphasizing the necessity of intention and actus reus for a criminal attempt. Applying this legal test, the conclusion was drawn that the appellant did not commit an attempt to smuggle out currency due to the lack of overt acts constituting such an attempt.

Furthermore, the judgment highlighted the absence of findings by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the confiscation of Indian currency seized from the appellant, despite being raised in the appeal. The appellant's contention that the case did not pertain to baggage under the Customs Act, but rather to currency confiscation, was supported by precedent, reinforcing the Tribunal's jurisdiction over the matter. Ultimately, the appellant was exonerated of all allegations, and the confiscation of both foreign and Indian currency was set aside, directing the respondent to release the seized currency to the appellant.