1988 (8) TMI 239 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of polyester textiles and foreign currency under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Contradictory statements by the appellant regarding possession of foreign currency.
3. Justifiability of the extreme punishment of confiscation for non-declaration of foreign currency.
4. Assessment of the quantity and value of the seized textiles.
5. Appellant's failure to declare imported American dollars.
6. Penalty imposition and modification of confiscation orders.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the order of the Additional Collector of Customs confiscating polyester textiles and foreign currency under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant, found with undeclared goods tied under his waist, failed to explain the possession satisfactorily, leading to the seizure.

2. The appellant provided conflicting statements, initially claiming to have sold US dollars in New Delhi and later admitting to bringing American dollars from Bangkok without declaration. The inconsistency raised doubts about the appellant's credibility regarding the possession and declaration of foreign currency.

3. The appellant's counsel argued that bringing foreign currency into India is not prohibited, and non-declaration is a technical violation not warranting extreme punishment. The counsel contended that the seized textiles were of insignificant value, questioning the justification for absolute confiscation.

4. The seized textiles totaled 19.10 meters valued at Rs. 941, with the appellant benefiting from baggage allowance and paying duty for other items. The department's evidence supported the appellant bringing and selling American dollars in India, leading to a modified order allowing clearance of textiles on duty payment and a fine.

5. The failure to declare imported American dollars resulted in penal consequences, with the appellant liable for penalties due to non-declaration. The modification of the confiscation order aimed to address the appellant's attempt to profit from selling undeclared foreign currency at rates higher than the official exchange rate.

6. The appellate tribunal modified the confiscation orders, allowing the appellant to clear the textiles on payment of duty and a fine, and redeeming the confiscated Indian currency on payment of a fine. The penalty imposition was confirmed, and the confiscated US dollars were to be surrendered for equivalent Indian currency payment.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, focusing on the confiscation of goods, contradictory statements, justification for penalties, assessment of seized items, and the tribunal's modifications to the confiscation orders.