2018 (5) TMI 892 - AT - Customs

Redemption fine - Smuggling - fake currency - case of appellant is that they had no mens rea and has no knowledge of the fact that the carton contained fake currency - Held that - the brother of the appellant who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time was exonerated by the Criminal Court and there is a clear-cut finding of the Court in favor the brother of the appellant that he did not have any knowledge of the contents of the carton, the penalty was also dropped against him on the same grounds. As far as appellant is concerned, there is no fault of the appellant at all in the present case and his brother has also been exonerated by the Court and the Tribunal and therefore, the redemption fine imposed on the appellant is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of fake Indian Currency Notes and vehicle.
2. Imposition of redemption fine and penalties.
3. Exoneration of the appellant's brother by the Criminal Court.
4. Applicability of the decision regarding the brother's case to the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the seizure of fake Indian Currency Notes from individuals traveling in a vehicle. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the currency notes and the vehicle under relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962. Penalties were imposed on individuals involved in the transportation of the fake currency.

2. The appellant appealed against the order, challenging the imposition of a redemption fine and penalties. The Commissioner partially allowed the appeal by reducing the redemption fine. The appellant argued that his brother, who was driving the vehicle, had been acquitted by the Criminal Court and the Tribunal had also dropped penalties against him, emphasizing the lack of mens rea and knowledge regarding the fake currency.

3. The Tribunal considered the exoneration of the appellant's brother by the Criminal Court, where it was found that the brother had no knowledge of the fake currency contents in the carton. Relying on the decision regarding the brother's case, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on him. The Tribunal concluded that there was no fault on the part of the appellant, given the exoneration of his brother by both the Court and the Tribunal.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the redemption fine imposed on the appellant was not sustainable in law, considering the exoneration of his brother and the lack of involvement or knowledge on the appellant's part. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned order and the redemption fine imposed on the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal arguments, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the confiscation, penalties, exoneration, and applicability of the decision to the appellant's case.