9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 5-6-1995 and an amount of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. fifty thousand only) was imposed on Smt. Surjit Kaur Kalra under Section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The brief facts of the case is that on 22-9-1995 the Customs officers of Air Intelligence unit at N.S.C. Bose International, Calcutta intercepted one lady pax named Mrs. Surjit Kaur Kalra, on checking of her passport it revealed that she arrived at Madras from Singapore on 21-9-1995 and was leaving through Calcutta on the very next day i.e., on 22-9-1995. She was interrogated at length when she stated that she had foreign currency within prescribed limit only on reasonable suspicion her checked baggage as well as one hand bag was searched in presence of two independent witnes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iver of penalty. 5. Coming to the merit of the case, the following points were emphasised through written submission as well as during the course of personal hearing :- (a) My attention was drawn to the order dated 26-9-1995 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat when the appellant was produced before the ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate immediately after her arrest by Customs. The relevant portion of the order in which my attention was drawn is reproduced below :- ........... but I find reason to believe that it was not likely on the part of the accused to know the latest amended provision of the notification of the Reserve Bank of India limiting the capacity to carry the foreign currency beyond the limit of $ 2500 or its equ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a situation like this, the aggregate value of all foreign currencies did not exceed US $ 10,000. The appellant was under the impression that she was not required to declare before Customs since her total currency did not exceed US $ 10,000 and as she was not aware of the change made in this regard through the Reserve Bank of India Notification dated 5-6-1995. It was also emphasised by the appellant that the announcement in the flight before landings that the embarkation card given on the flight referred to the limit of US $ 10,000 as per position prevailing prior to the said notification dated 5-6-1995. It was also stressed that before electronic board at Madras Airport just before the Immigration Counter displayed the earlier limit of US ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as referred to this specific point of her plea of ignorance of the change in the earlier FERA regulation and appreciation of that is reflected in his order. My attention was also drawn to Revenue Law Times Volume 10, No. 4 publication dated 23-9-1995 wherein for the first time the said notification of Reserve Bank of India was published. This happened after the arrival of the appellant. Against this background to my mind the plea that the time gap between issue of Reserve Bank of India notification and its dissemination has caused the infringement carries credibility. Moreover, I find that it is not a case that the impugned currencies were found in a concealed manner reflecting the guilty mind of the appellant. There is also no evidence on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
