9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of traveller's cheques. The reason as to why the Appellant required such an amount is not so relevant. The Appellant has stated that he wished to purchase some immovable property in India - This is a case of default on the part of the Appellant in not declaring this in the CDF. However, there is nothing on record to conclude that the action of the Appellant was ex facie mala fide or intended to deliberately evade the legal provisions which were attracted. However, the redemption fine and the penalty imposed upon the Appellant is excessive - Rather than remanding the matter at this stage to the Appropriate Authorities for redetermination of the redemption fine and the penalty, upon taking into consideration the facts and circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foresaid, submits that there is absolutely no prohibition or bar to bring in foreign currency in India. He, therefore, submits that there was no breach of the Customs Act, 1962. He submits that if at all there was any breach of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) then, it was for the authorities under the FEMA to initiate action in the matter. He submits that the penalty and the fine imposed by the Custom Authorities is totally without jurisdiction. 5. Mr. Pangam, without prejudice, submits that in the present case, there was no breach of the provisions of Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962. He submits that Section 2(3) defines baggage'. He submits that Section 2(22) defines goods' to include, inter alia, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duce proper documentation in respect of the foreign exchange which he was carrying and which was confiscated and the confiscated foreign exchange has already been released in favour of the Appellant. In these circumstances, there is no case made out to interfere with the redemption fine and the penalty imposed upon the Appellant. On these grounds, she submits that this Appeal may be dismissed. 8. Rival contentions now fall for our determination. 9. In this case, it is necessary at the outset, to refer to the Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2000. Regulation 6 relates to import of foreign exchange into India and provides that a person may bring into India from any place outside India, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declarations have to be made in the CDF. Accordingly, we are unable to accept Mr. Pangam's first contention. 11. Similarly, we are unable to accept Mr. Pangam's second contention that all these are matters which have to be dealt with by the authorities under the FEMA. The Regulations refer to import and export of Indian currency and currency notes. The issue relating to export and import pertains to the domain of the Custom authorities. It is for these reasons that even the Regulations require that the declaration be made to the Custom authorities. 12. This is also not a case where we can say that there is no breach of Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962. This section requires the owner of any baggage, for the purp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Bank of England that there was absolutely no restriction to carry currency into India. The Appellant, in the present case, had carried currency of about 8,000 GBP in cash and an amount of GBP 60,000 by way of traverller's cheques. From this, it is clear that the bulk of the amount which the Appellant attempted to be imported, was in the form of traveller's cheques. The reason as to why the Appellant required such an amount is not so relevant. The Appellant has stated that he wished to purchase some immovable property in India. This is a case of default on the part of the Appellant in not declaring this in the CDF. However, there is nothing on record to conclude that the action of the Appellant was ex facie mala fide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
