Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2015 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 200 - CESTAT MUMBAIRedemption fine - Seizure of currency - A plea has been taken that since currency is not a prohibited item, an option must be given under Section 125 of the Customs Act to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. - discovery of foreign currency which was not declared - He illegally took foreign currency and smuggled into India goods such as textile needless and pharmaceuticals etc. without declaring them to Customs at Ahmedabad Air Port and without paying duty on them. - Penalty u/s 114(i) - Held that:- In the present case, the act of smuggling is not established through statements only. It is established through a series of facts and events namely non declaration, detection of currency in a packet contained in a suitcase already checked in, repeated statements of appellant, the circumstantial evidence in the form of statement of M/s. Arcadia etc. The Section 125 states that where the importation or exportation is prohibited under the Act or any other law, the officer adjudicating the case may give to owner of the goods an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. The para 6 of Foreign Exchange Regulations only permit an amount of 5000$ which is attempted to be taken out of India has to be possessed in accordance with para 7 (3) (i) and 3(ii) of FEMA Regulations. It has not even been proved by the appellant that he was in legal position of 5000$ what to talk about 70000$. Thus, the possession of such huge amount of foreign currency is prohibited under FEMA Regulations and the option to redeem the same under Section 125 is not there. Even if one extends the argument that the verdict of the larger bench related to a case of Indian currency, I find that in the present case the appellant does not deserve my discretion to give an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. In view of the totality of circumstances and the evidentiary value of facts, the appellant does not deserve an option to release the goods on payment of redemption fine. His clear active role in the act of smuggling also does not deserve mitigation of the penalty imposed. - Decided against assessee.
|