Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2009 (4) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2009 (4) TMI 158 - AT - Customs


Issues:
1. Confiscation of foreign currency under Section 111 of the Customs Act.
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. Confiscation of Foreign Currency:
The appellant, a British National, arrived in India with lb 68,000/- in foreign currency, which was seized by customs officers under a panchnama. The appellant claimed innocence, stating he was unaware of the regulations and had brought the currency for property investment and business purposes. The appellant later filed a Currency Declaration Form (CDF) as per Regulation 6 under the Foreign Exchange Management Act. The adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of the currency under Section 111(d), (m), and (o) of the Customs Act, offering redemption against a fine of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The appellant argued that there was no intention to smuggle the currency and requested leniency in penalty. The appellate tribunal upheld the confiscation under Section 111(d) and (o) due to the breach of Section 77 of the Customs Act and Regulation 6, reducing the fine to Rs. 5,00,000/- and penalty to Rs. 2,00,000/-, deeming the Commissioner's order sustained.

2. Imposition of Penalty:
The appellant contended that since there was no prohibition on importing foreign currency into India, Section 111(d) was inapplicable. The appellant's counsel argued that the subsequent filing of the CDF nullified any breach of Section 77. However, the tribunal found that the appellant's failure to declare the currency upon arrival constituted a breach of Section 77, attracting Section 111(d) and (o) due to non-compliance with Regulation 6. The tribunal reduced the fine and penalty imposed by the Commissioner, deeming them excessive given the circumstances of the case. The tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 112(a) but reduced the amounts to Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- respectively. The appeal was disposed of with the modified penalties in place, affirming the Commissioner's order.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates