2006 (5) TMI 288 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Violation of Customs Act provisions, Penalty imposition

In this case, the appellant was intercepted at Chennai International airport for carrying U.S.$ 50,000 in travellers' cheques and Rs. 10,000/- Indian currency without permission from the Reserve Bank of India. The appellant failed to declare the full contents of his baggage, violating Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority concluded that the appellant breached Section 113(d) & (h) of the Customs Act and imposed a penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act. The appellant failed to appear for the proceedings initially but later filed for restoration of the appeal. The appellant's argument that he was carrying the foreign exchange for business purposes was not supported by evidence of permission from the RBI. The appellant's failure to declare the full amount of foreign exchange at the customs barrier and immigration further supported the violation of Customs Act provisions.

The Directors and Finance Manager of the appellant's company stated that they applied for the foreign exchange on behalf of the appellant, but there was no evidence of RBI clearance as required by Section 5 of FEMA. The appellant's failure to declare the full amount of travellers' cheques and Indian currency at the customs barrier constituted a violation of Section 77 of the Customs Act. The confiscation of the foreign exchange under Section 113(d) and (h) of the Customs Act, along with FEMA Regulations, was deemed lawful. The adjudicating authority found the appellant's attempts to shift blame and his failure to declare the full amount of foreign exchange as indicative of mala-fide intent. The penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 114 of the Customs Act was upheld as just and appropriate given the circumstances.

Ultimately, the tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty imposed on the appellant for violating the Customs Act provisions. The judgment emphasized the importance of declaring foreign exchange at customs barriers and immigration points, highlighting the legal obligations under the Customs Act. The tribunal found no grounds for interference in the penalty imposition, considering the appellant's actions and the evidence presented during the proceedings.