2016 (8) TMI 1280

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... thority and for release only to the owner of the goods. This is an erroneous interpretation. An adjudicating authority is vested with that discretion only in relation to prohibited goods; indeed, it is moot whether currency is goods. Currency is not prohibited goods and, therefore, the adjudicating authority is bound to allow redemption to the person from whom it was seized - the appellant is mere .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i by Cathay Pacific flight no. CX-751 from Mumbai on 10th March 2005. The currency was seized from the check-in baggage of the appellant. 2. The impugned order confiscated the currency under section 113 of Customs Act, 1962 without option to redeem and imposed penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- on appellant under section 114 of Customs Act, 1962. 3. Heard Learned Counsel for appellant and Learned .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o the person from whom it was seized. 6. Having conceded that the appellant is merely a carrier, it was also not consistent with the finding to impose such a harsh penalty on the appellant. 7. For the above reasons, the impugned order requires modification. Accordingly, the option to redeem the confiscated goods is allowed on payment of ₹ 5,00,000/- within four weeks of receipt of this .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X