9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quantum of penalty from Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rs. 75,000/-. 2. On the basis of specific intelligence that the appellant was attempting to smuggle out foreign currency he was intercepted by the DRI officers on 7-12-98 at Hyderabad Airport while he was about to board the flight to Riyadh. He was accompanied by his family consisting of five members. On examination of his baggage three envelopes containing foreign currency equivalent to Indian Rs. 5,34,520/- was found including 22,610 Saudi Riyals, UAE Dirhams, Qatari Riyals, Saudi Riyals and US Dollars. The foreign currency was seized under a panchnama made on 7-12-98. Statements were given by the appellant on 7-12-98 as well as on 9-12-98. On two of the envelopes containing foreign currency re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India in contravention of the provisions of Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Sections 13 and 67 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The foreign currency was held liable to confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the appellant liable to penal action under Section 114. He reduced the penalty from Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rs. 75,000/-. 4. Before us the main contention raised by the appellant is that he had brought with him on 7-11-98 currency worth Rs. 12,000 US $ which is equivalent to Rs. 4,76,000/- for the purpose of acquiring property. He did not declare the foreign currency on 7-11-98 since he was informed by the officers that there was no need as each passenger could freely bring to Indian foreign currency ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of arrival in India. 5. We find no merit in the contention raised by the appellant. The appellant could not substantiate its case that he had brought at the time of arrival in India on 7-11-98 foreign currency worth 12000 US $. Admittedly he had not declared any foreign currency on his arrival in India 7-11-98. His explanation for not declaring the same cannot be accepted. According to the appellant, he had drawn 20,000 Saudi Riyals from his bank and it was that money which he had brought to India. It is relevant to note that the envelopes recovered from the appellant contained, apart from Saudi Riyals, foreign currency also. He could not give any explanation as to how he came into possession of such foreign currency. As pointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
