TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MBAY 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE For the Petitioner : Mr.T. Chezhiyan For the Respondents : No appearance for R1 Mr.K.S. Ramaswamy, Junior Panel Counsel for R2 ORDER By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal in the admission stage itself. 2. Mr.K.S. Ramaswamy, learned Junior Panel Counsel accepts notice for the 2nd respondent. 3.The only point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Original Authority has exercised his discretion correctly by rejecting the 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. 4. Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the date of option given thereunder, such option shall become void, unless an appeal against such order is pending. Explanation.--For removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that in cases where an order under sub-section (1) has been passed before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2018 receives the assent of the President and no appeal is pending against such order as on that date, the option under said sub-section may be exercised within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date on which such assent is received.] 5. The petitioner contends that foreign and Indian currencies confiscated being a restricted item, they are entitled for redemption as per the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avit has also been filed by the 2nd respondent stating that the petitioner had carried excess Indian and foreign currencies in violation of Regulation 5 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import Currency) Regulations, 2015 and therefore, being prohibited goods, the question of granting redemption to the petitioner under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 will not arise. According to them, the authorities have exercised their discretion judiciously while rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore, the question of interfering with the said orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not arise. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ger has claimed that the currency belonged to him and that he was taking it out of India to invest as a partner in a restaurant in Dubai. Hence, I specifically note that the total value of currency seized (Foreign Currency Indian Currency) amounts to Rs.58,29,225/- and he himself has stated in his statement under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 that he was an Income Tax assessee with an annual income of Rs.6 lakhs. A person having an annual income of Rs.6 lakhs claiming to own almost 10 times of the same in currency for export without any explanation to the source of Additional source of funding definitely does not look plausible. The passenger even till date has also not been in a position to explain or show evidences as to how he owns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
