2015 (3) TMI 513 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of the currency and enhancement of the penalty - Assessee not declared the currency - Held that - As regards the decisions of the Tribunal submitted and relied upon by the appellant, we find that in one case viz., 2005 (4) TMI 213 - CESTAT, CHENNAI , the appellant therein had indicated the purpose of carrying the currency and had given specific details as to why he needed the same. In this case, no such details are coming forth. In the second case, the currency was released by reducing the redemption fine imposed but the total amount was within the limit prescribed. Therefore both the decisions relied upon by the appellant are not applicable to the facts of this case. Since none of the decisions cited by the appellant are applicable to the facts of this case, we uphold the impugned order as regards confiscation since there is no dispute that the currency was not declared, so concealed in the baggage and could not have been detected but for the information received by the customs authorities. As regards penalty, we find that the enhancement of penalty by the learned Commissioner was not called for since only the appellant was in appeal before the Commissioner and Revenue was not in appeal and therefore the enhancement of penalty from ₹ 25,000/- to ₹ 50,000/- is set aside and penalty is reduced to ₹ 25,000/- only - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure and confiscation of foreign currency at the airport for not being declared.
2. Appeal against the confiscation and penalty enhancement.
3. Interpretation of applicable legal principles and previous case laws.
4. Decision on the confiscation and penalty imposed.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the seizure of foreign currency from the appellant at the airport during a search, which was not declared and exceeded the limit set by the RBI for exporting foreign exchange. The appellant admitted to not declaring the currency, leading to its absolute confiscation. The Commissioner (A) upheld the confiscation and increased the penalty from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 50,000.

2. The appellant raised various submissions in the appeal, including the consideration of another case against him, the absence of mala fide for confiscation, and the argument that a passenger is not required to declare currency below the RBI limit. The Tribunal noted that the decisions cited by the appellant were not applicable to the current case, as they involved different circumstances. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation due to the undisclosed currency being concealed in baggage and detected based on information received by customs authorities. The penalty enhancement by the Commissioner was set aside, reducing it back to Rs. 25,000.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the legal principles and previous case laws cited by the appellant. It was observed that the circumstances in the cited cases were distinguishable from the present case, as specific details justifying the possession of currency were provided in those cases. Since the appellant failed to provide such details and the currency was undeclared and concealed, the confiscation was upheld. The Tribunal clarified that the appellant's argument regarding the declaration requirement was not applicable in this context.

4. In the final decision, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the currency due to non-declaration and concealment, while reducing the penalty back to the original amount of Rs. 25,000. The Tribunal emphasized that the penalty enhancement by the Commissioner was unwarranted, as the Revenue was not in appeal, and only the appellant was challenging the decision.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, legal principles applied, and the final decision reached by the Tribunal regarding the seizure, confiscation, and penalty in the case.