2023 (2) TMI 332 - HC - Customs

Rejection of petitioner's application filed under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 seeking for redemption of Indian and Foreign currencies confiscated from the petitioner by paying fine - Original Authority exercised correct discretion, in such rejection or not - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation can be sought even for prohibited goods. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS ROSTAM PARVARESH [2011 (10) TMI 446 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and RAJU SHARMA AND ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2020 (1) TMI 62 - DELHI HIGH COURT] dealt with cases, where discretion was exercised in favour of the applicant by the Original Authority under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 by granting redemption, which was not interfered with by the High Court - But in the instant case, the Original Authority, the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority viz., the 1st respondent herein have concurrently held that the petitioner is not entitled for redemption of the confiscated foreign and Indian currencies.

Admittedly, the confiscation order passed in respect of foreign and Indian currencies seized from the petitioner has also attained finality. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has violated the Regulation 5 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import Currency) Regulations 2015. Under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 it is a discretionary power - Having exercised the discretion by giving sound reasons, the question of interference by this Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of the orders, which have been challenged in this writ petition will not arise. This Court is not an Appellate Court and only when the orders challenged are perverse, the question of interference with regard to those orders will arise. The reasons given by authorities for rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 125 of the Customs Act are sound and justifiable.

Here is a case, where all the three authorities, who have passed the orders, which have been impugned in this writ petition have consistently held that the petitioner is not entitled for redemption. When it is not in dispute that the petitioner has violated Regulation 5 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import Currency) Regulations 2015 and that too when the confiscation order has attained finality and that too when the impugned orders are not perverse, this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to necessarily reject this writ petition as it is bereft of any merit.

This writ petition is dismissed.