9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Confiscation of foreign currency under Customs Act, 1962, redemption of confiscated currency, penalty imposition, failure to declare foreign currency, leniency in penalties. Analysis: 1. Confiscation of Foreign Currency: The Commissioner of Customs confiscated foreign currency amounting to Rs. 21,89,510 under Sections 113(d) and (h) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant was given the option to redeem the currency by paying a fine of Rs. 6,00,000 under Section 125 of the Act. Additionally, the Commissioner confiscated the bags used for carrying the currency and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 under Section 114(i) of the Act. 2. Failure to Declare Currency: The appellant, a Non-Resident Indian (NRI), was intercepted at the airport with undeclared foreign currency. Despite justifying the currency as funds for business dealings, the appellant failed to declare the currency upon arrival or departure, contravening Customs Act provisions and FEMA regulations. The Commissioner acknowledged the lawful acquisition of the currency but emphasized the necessity of declaration as per regulations. 3. Leniency in Penalties: Considering it was the appellant's first offense, the legitimate purpose of the currency, absence of duty involvement, and the overall circumstances, the Tribunal found grounds for leniency. The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 1,50,000 and the penalty to Rs. 25,000, aiming to serve the ends of justice while acknowledging the specific context of the case. 4. Judgment Modification: The Tribunal modified the impugned order by reducing the redemption fine and penalty, partially allowing the appeal filed by the appellant. The decision aimed to balance the enforcement of Customs regulations with a fair assessment of the appellant's situation, ultimately resulting in a reduced financial burden on the appellant. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the confiscation of undeclared foreign currency, emphasized the importance of compliance with Customs regulations, and demonstrated a balanced approach by showing leniency in penalties due to specific circumstances surrounding the case.
|
