9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utside the country, as per the Regulations framed under the FEMA. Therefore, a person intending to take currency outside the India beyond the threshold limit of ₹ 5,000/- is required to obtain prior permission. Admittedly, the petitioner did not obtain such prior permission before carrying Indian currency to the tune of ₹ 14,00,000/-. Thus, the currencies, which were seized from the petitioner and confiscated by the order passed by the third respondent are undoubtedly prohibited goods, and the power exercised by the third respondent is valid and proper - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - Writ Petition No. 28999 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 3-1-2018 - T.S. Sivagnanam, J. Shri A.K. Jayaraj, for the Petitioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not have been invoked, as there is no prohibition imposed under the Act, or any other law, to take the Indian currency outside the country. 4. I am not persuaded to accept the submission of the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, for the reason that, Section 2(22)(d) of the Act, defines goods , includes currency and negotiable instruments, and Section 2(33) defines prohibited goods which means any goods, import or export of which, is subject to any prohibition under this Act or any other law, for the time being in force, but does not include any such goods, in respect of which, the conditions subject to which, the goods are permitted to be imported or exported have been complied with. 5. The contention of the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d respondent are undoubtedly prohibited goods, and the power exercised by the third respondent is valid and proper. That apart, this Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not re-examine the factual position, as it has been appreciated by the second respondent/Appellate Authority and re-appreciated by the first respondent/Revisional Authority. Therefore, the scope of interference, in such orders, being very limited, and the Court, having found that the petitioner has not made out any case, is not inclined to entertain the challenge to the impugned orders, on the grounds raised by the petitioner. 9. For the above reasons, this writ petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
