9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laration for purposes of Section 77 and, therefore, the breach of Section 77 by the appellant has continued ever since the date of his arrival in India. – the mandatory condition attached to import of foreign currency was not complied with by the appellant and, therefore, the currency became liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Act. The confiscation of the currency can only be sustained and it is ordered accordingly. - liable to confiscation and penalty. - C/1136/2008 - A/122/2009-WZB/C-IV/(SMB), - Dated:- 6-4-2009 - Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) REPRESENTED BY : Shri Rajeev Waglay with Ms. Anagha Gavade, Advocates, for the Appellant. Dr. Y.D. Banga, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appellant is a Briti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l under Section 118 of the Act as also proposing to impose penalty on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Act. In his reply to the show-cause notice, the appellant submitted inter alia that he, being a foreign national, was not aware of the legal provisions/procedures in India and that there was no bar against carrying any foreign currency into India. He also pointed out that he had filed an application with the customs authorities on 1-11-2007 along with a Currency Declaration Form (CDF) in terms of Regulation 6 under the Foreign Exchange Management Act. He requested that he be exonerated by taking into account the ex post facto declaration. He further submitted that he did not commit breach of Section 77 of the Customs Act or Regula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case. Finally, the counsel has prayed for leniency in relation to fine and penalty in the event of confiscation of the currency being upheld. 3. The learned SDR has, apart from reiterating the findings of the Commissioner, relied on the Government of India's decision in the case of Jasubhai v. Soni - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 312 (GOI), wherein it was held that the declaration envisaged under Section 77 of the Customs Act had to be filed by a passenger on his arrival in India and not at any time thereafter. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, I find that there is no serious contest against the finding of breach of Section 77 of the Customs Act by the appellant. Section 77 mandates that the owner of any baggage shall, for the pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time being in force in India and hence Section 111(d) of the Customs Act gets attracted. Insofar as clause (m) of the Customs Act is concerned, the same provides for confiscation of any goods brought from a place outside India where such goods do not correspond in respect of value or in any other particular with the declaration made under Section 77 in respect thereof. Here is a case where no declaration whatsoever was filed by the party and, therefore, in respect of the foreign currency and traveller's cheques, it should be held that these goods did not correspond in respect of the value with the declaration made under Section 77. Clause (o) of Section 111 also provided for confiscation of any goods imported into India on the ground of non ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
