1980 (3) TMI 95 - CGOVT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner was required to declare the foreign exchange in his possession while leaving India.
2. Whether the petitioner's act of attempting to export foreign exchange in contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act rendered it liable to confiscation.
3. Whether the penalty imposed on the petitioner was excessive.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner was charged for attempting to export foreign exchange in contravention of Section 13 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The petitioner argued that as a transit passenger, he was not required to declare the foreign exchange in his possession while leaving India. The Judicial Magistrate acquitted the petitioner in a criminal case, stating that there was no obligation for the petitioner to make a declaration. However, the government observed that under Section 13 of the Act, both import and export of foreign exchange without permission are prohibited. Even if the petitioner was in transit, the export of foreign exchange was illegal, leading to confiscation under the Customs Act. The government disagreed with the Magistrate's view and upheld the confiscation of the foreign exchange.

2. The petitioner contended that since he was only a transit passenger carrying the foreign exchange from Bangladesh to Bangkok via India, he should not be held liable for attempting to export the currency. The government, however, pointed out that the foreign exchange, even if brought into India by the petitioner, was considered imported under the Act. As the petitioner was taking it out to Bangkok, it constituted illegal export under Section 13(2) of the Act. The government upheld the confiscation of the foreign exchange as correct in law, rejecting the petitioner's argument based on transit status.

3. The Additional Collector of Customs had confiscated the foreign exchange and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5000 on the petitioner, which was confirmed by the Board. The government found the penalty appropriate considering the gravity of the offense. Despite the petitioner's plea that the penalty was excessive, the government upheld the penalty and rejected the revision application. The confiscation of the foreign exchange and the penalty imposed were deemed legally justified given the petitioner's actions and the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the Customs Act.