9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are non-declaration and concealment of gold and foreign currency, absolute confiscation of gold bars and foreign currency under Customs Act, imposition of penalty under Customs Act, entitlement to redeem goods under Section 125 of Customs Act, violation of regulations under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), and excessive penalty imposed by the Commissioner. Non-Declaration and Confiscation of Foreign Currency: The appellant did not declare the foreign currency brought into India, violating the regulation requiring declaration to Customs authorities. The appellant imported foreign currency exceeding the limit without declaration, thus violating the regulation. The Tribunal found that the non-declaration of currency and its consequential confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act were justified. The Tribunal distinguished a previous case where no declaration was required for foreign currency up to US$ 10,000, as the present case involved contested claims and the relevant FERA regulation was not considered. Confiscation of Gold Bars: The gold bars were rightly held liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act as they were attempted to be cleared without declaration and lacked proof of lawful acquisition. The Commissioner accepted the appellant's statement that he was carrying the gold bars for another person, leading to a finding of abetment of smuggling. The law treats smuggling and abetment equally, justifying the confiscation of the gold bars. Redemption of Goods and Penalty Imposition: The appellant was denied the opportunity to redeem the goods, which was a genuine grievance. Under Section 125 of the Customs Act, the Commissioner had the discretion to allow redemption of goods, as seen in past cases. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to determine reasonable fines for redeeming the goods, including the currency. The excessive penalty imposed by the Commissioner was vacated, with a direction to redetermine a reasonable penalty after giving the appellant a fair opportunity to be heard. Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, and the Commissioner was directed to determine reasonable fines for redeeming the goods and to reassess the penalty imposed on the appellant. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, ensuring the appellant's right to be heard before the final order is passed.
|
