2014 (10) TMI 755 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of foreign currencies u/s 113(d) - penalty u/s 114 - appellant was carrying foreign currency without the permission of RBI - Held that - The authorities took note of the voluntary statement recorded under Section 108 of the Act, wherein the petitioner had categorically admitted that he was taking the currency clandestinely on behalf of one Abdullah for monetary consideration. This particular evidence was held to be acceptable and cannot be brushed aside and there is no record to show that the statement of the petitioner was recorded under duress/pressure and the same was not voluntary. It is settled legal proposition that statement recorded under Section 108 of the Act is admissible unlike a statement recorded by a Police Officer. Thus, the Appellate authority and the Revisional authority considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of concealment of currency and the fact that the petitioner was carrying the currency on behalf someone else for monetary consideration, rejected the request for redemption. Therefore, I find no valid reasons to interfere with the concurrent finding of the three authorities - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Absolute confiscation of foreign currencies under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962
- Penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against the absolute confiscation of foreign currencies equivalent to Indian currency of Rs. 31,17,995/- and a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Sections 113(d) and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant was intercepted at Chennai airport with foreign currencies, admitted to carrying them for others, and engaging in smuggling activities involving contraband goods.

2. The appellant argued for the release of goods on payment of redemption fine citing Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant claimed ownership of the foreign currencies and requested discretionary release based on previous tribunal decisions. However, the adjudicating authority did not extend the option to redeem the goods, considering the appellant a habitual smuggler based on evidence.

3. The learned Authorised Representative contended that the appellant's actions indicated habitual smuggling behavior, supported by relevant case laws. The appellant was found carrying foreign currency without permission, leading to confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.

4. The judgment referred to the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, and relevant regulations, highlighting the illegality of dealing in foreign exchange without permission. The case was compared to a similar situation where the High Court upheld confiscation due to unauthorized possession of foreign currency, emphasizing the appellant's history of smuggling activities.

5. The judgment concluded that the appellant's case mirrored previous decisions where confiscation was upheld based on habitual smuggling behavior. The appellant's plea for redemption was denied, considering the circumstances and evidence. The appeal was rejected based on the findings and precedents cited in the judgment.