9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d gone through the record. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellant No. 1 is a Swiss national. He happened to visit India in 17th May, 2003. He was intercepted while travelling in a car bearing No. UP65-H-8448 on Sonauli-Gorakhpur highway near Sampatia. On conducting his search Swiss Francs 36,415/- and US $ 44 were recovered. Indian currency of Rs. 1,27,900/-, Nepalese goods and one idol of Lord Ganesh were also recovered which were seized and the adjudicating authority has ordered the same to be confiscated. The authority has allowed the redemption of some of the currencies on payment of redemption fine and imposed personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on appellant No. 1 and Rs. 10,000/- on appellant No. 2, being the owner of the car whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the possession of the appellant No. 1, on the ground that it was in the denomination of Rs. 1,000/-, the learned Counsel has contended that being a foreign national, the appellant No. 1, did not know the exact rules and regulations for possessing/carrying the same in India. The learned Counsel has also referred to the Foreign Exchange Management (Export Import of Currency) Regulations, 2000 under which taking to or bringing from, Nepal the Indian currency by a foreign national i.e. notes of the denomination of above Rs. 100/- is not absolutely prohibited, rather can be carried with permission. Therefore, lapse committed by him was that he did not take the permission from the competent authority and for this lapse, absolute confiscation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the lapse committed by him. According to the learned counsel, the penalty imposed is too high and deserves to be reduced substantially. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, detailed above, the personal penalty is imposed on the appellant No. 1, is reduced to Rs. 20,000/-. 8. The confiscation of the car of the appellant No. 2 and imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on him has been hotly contested by the learned Counsel by contending that as a owner of the car, he could not be attributed any knowledge regarding the possession of foreign currency or the prohibited goods by the appellant No. 1, especially when he was not accompanying the appellant No. 1 at that time in the car. The car was being driven by his driver wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
