2014 (4) TMI 1123 - CGOVT - Customs

Revision by Central Government - Section 129DD of Customs Act 1962 - Confiscation of foreign currency of US 40, 000 equivalent to Indian 24, 05, 490/- under Section 111(d) of Customs Act 1962 - Respondent seeks for refund of residual amount after subtracting the penalty and redemption fine imposed from the sum realized on disposal of the impugned foreign currency - Held that - it is not a case of refund under Section 27 of Customs Act since it is not a refund of duty. Respondent has simply requested to adjust the redemption fine/penalty from said seized currency and return the balance amount. Since the seized goods are foreign currency and it can be returned by deducting the redemption fine and personal penalty amount there is no question of having no accessibility without deposit of redemption fine. - Revision application rejected

Summary

Issues:
- Redemption of confiscated currency under Customs Act, 1962
- Refund application for residual amount after deduction of penalty and redemption fine
- Interpretation of provisions regarding redemption fine and refund procedure

Analysis:
1. The case involved the redemption of confiscated currency under the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant, a passenger, was intercepted at the airport with US $40,000 equivalent to INR 24,05,490. The Additional Commissioner of Customs ordered the confiscation of the currency with an option to redeem it on payment of a fine. Penalties were also imposed on the applicant.

2. The applicant, instead of paying the penalty and redemption fine, applied for a refund of the residual amount after deducting the penalty and fine. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs rejected the claim, stating that the amount was not accessible for refund as the redemption fine was not paid.

3. The applicant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the refund, stating that the sale proceeds held by the Government could be returned by deducting the fine and penalty. The Commissioner set aside the original order and allowed the appeal.

4. The applicant filed a revision application before the Central Government, arguing that the redemption fine needed to be deposited for the refund to be accessible. The Government observed that the original authority had allowed redemption of the currency on payment of the fine and penalties. The Government noted that it was not a case of refund of duty but a request to adjust the redemption fine and penalty from the seized currency.

5. The Government found no merit in the applicant's contention that the refund amount could not be accessed without depositing the redemption fine. It was determined that the seized foreign currency could be returned by deducting the fine and penalty amount. The Government upheld the order-in-appeal as legal and proper, rejecting the revision application.

6. In conclusion, the Central Government rejected the revision application and upheld the order-in-appeal, allowing for the refund of the residual amount after deducting the redemption fine and penalties from the confiscated currency.