TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, by holding that redemption of the currency could not be granted to Petitioner No. 1. Both the petitioners were before the Revisionary Authority. Even if, for a moment, it were to be assumed that the Revisionary Authority read the orders of the authorities below as allowing the redemption of the currency to Petitioner No. 1, all that he was required to do to remedy the situation, was to substitute the said direction by permitting redemption of the currency to Petitioner No. 2. There was no occasion, whatsoever, for the Revisionary Authority to set aside the Order-in-Appeal, wholesale, thereby rendering the seized currency irredeemable, even by Petitioner No. 2. Exercise of discretion, by judicial, or quasi-judicial authorities, merits interference only where the exercise is perverse or tainted by patent illegality, or is tainted by oblique motives Mangalam Organics Ltd. v. UOI [2017 (4) TMI 1223 - SUPREME COURT] . No illegality, much less perversity, is discernible in the decision, of the AC, to allow redemption of the seized currency on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 50,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) rightly refused to interfere with the said decision, and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner, Customs (AC), on 19th July, 2016. 5. The Chartered Accountant, who appeared on behalf of Petitioner No. 1, during personal hearing, pleaded ignorance of law. 6. The case was adjudicated by the AC vide Order-in-Original No. 133/2016-17 dated 2nd August, 2016. The AC held that, as per the Foreign Exchange Management (Export Import of Currency) (Amendment) Regulations, 2014 read with the provisions of the FEMA, Petitioner no. 1 was entitled to carry, out of India, Indian currency upto ₹ 25,000/-. Even while accepting that the currency, in possession of Petitioner No. 1, belonged to him, the AC found that the provisions of the Customs Act had, nevertheless, been contravened, rendering the Indian currency, to the extent it was in excess of ₹ 25,000/-, liable to confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act. It was also found that, as Petitioner No. 1 was carrying the currency on the directions of Petitioner No. 2, both the petitioners were liable to penalty, under Section 114 of the Customs Act. 7. Resultantly, the AC ordered confiscation of the excess Indian currency of ₹ 3,75,000/- under Section 113 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gust, 2019, the Revisionary Authority allowed the Revision Application of the revenue and set aside the Order-in-Appeal dated 12th September, 2018 (supra), of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revisionary Authority noted the only contention, as advanced before him by the Revenue, as being that redemption of the currency ought not to have been granted to Petitioner No. 1, as he was only the carrier of the currency and not the owner thereof. Observing that, as the owner of the currency, i.e., Petitioner No. 2 was known, redemption of the currency could not have been granted to Petitioner No. 1, the Revisionary Authority, vide the impugned order, set aside the Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals), to the extent it permitted redemption of the currency on payment of redemption fine and penalty. 12. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 13. The contentions of the Revenue as advanced before the Revisionary Authority (as recorded in the impugned order), as well as the decision of the Revisionary Authority, thereon, defeat comprehension. It is undisputed that Petitioner No. 2 is the owner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e liable to any duty and charges payable in respect of such goods. (3) Where the fine imposed under sub-section (1) is not paid within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of option given thereunder, such option shall become void, unless an appeal against such order is pending. 15. The owner of the currency being Surender Gupta (Petitioner No. 2), there could, undisputedly, be no question of releasing the currency to Petitioner No. 1. We are, however, completely at a loss as to how, on this ground, the Revisionary Authority could allow the Revision Application of the Revenue. Both the petitioners were before him. A reading of the Order-in-Original of the AC does not indicate that option to redeem the currency had been granted, by the AC, to Petitioner No. 1. The Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) makes the matter clear by observing that, as the owner, i.e., Petitioner No. 2, was known, redemption of the currency could be granted to Petitioner No. 2. In this backdrop, it is impossible to understand how the Revisionary Authority set aside the said order, by holding that redemption of the currency could not be granted to Peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
