2016 (10) TMI 199

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ,000/- concealed in packs in hand-baggage. The currency was confiscated under section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty imposed on the passenger under section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. At the initial stage of investigation, the appellant had claimed to be a carrier on behalf of another individual but controverted this assertion in later statements as well as in submissions. The original authority did not find these to be acceptable and confiscated the currency without giving option to redeem them. 3. The appellant contends that, though in accordance with section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 which deals with the confiscated goods, discretion is vested in the adjudicating authority in relation to prohibited goods which, admitte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... th about the ambivalence of the passenger in relation to ownership of the confiscated Indian currency. Moreover, it is also seen that the impugned order has considered it necessary to examine the implication of the allegation against the appellant thus: "36. In this case, no legally acceptable proof has been produced which could indicate that the impugned currency was generated out of legal dealings and who actually is the owner or owners of this currency. The passenger has initially co-operated with the investigation but later on took a reverse summersault. The real owner has remained behind the scene and used the passenger as a stooge in the act of smuggling. The currency was thus attempted to be sent out of India through a carrier in a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ow redemption on payment of fine if the goods are prohibited. Undoubtedly, the export of Indian currency is prohibited. Notwithstanding the veracity of the claim of the appellant to be the owner of the currency, there is no valid legal ground for an individual to carry Indian currency out of the country. These are not accepted for transactions anywhere in the world. The purpose of taking out such currency could be for manifold reasons with none of them skirting the fringes of legality. This point is clearly alluded to in the impugned order. 7. Notwithstanding the various decisions cited on behalf of the appellant there are probably an equal number of decisions which counter those submissions. The decision must rest on the facts and circums .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X