Technical breach in foreign currency carriage can sustain confiscation, but fines and penalties may be reduced accordingly.
Foreign currency lawfully acquired in substantial part may still be liable to confiscation where its carriage constitutes a technical breach of customs law and section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, even if the facts do not show deliberate concealment for illicit export. On the same reasoning, the article notes that redemption fine and personal penalties should reflect the limited nature of the contravention, leading to reduction of the fines on the company and one appellant, setting aside the director's penalty, and treating the separate claim for U.S. $55 as already included in the confiscated amount.
Issues: (i) whether the seized foreign currency was liable to confiscation notwithstanding the finding that most of it had been lawfully acquired and that the manner of carriage did not indicate a deliberate attempt at concealment; (ii) whether the redemption fine and personal penalties required reduction or setting aside in the circumstances.
Issue (i): Whether the seized foreign currency was liable to confiscation notwithstanding the finding that most of it had been lawfully acquired and that the manner of carriage did not indicate a deliberate attempt at concealment.
Analysis: The currency was found to have been lawfully acquired in substantial part, but it was handed over at the airport and carried by another person. The manner of recovery from the briefcase and trousers did not, by itself, show concealment suggesting an intention to illicitly export the currency, yet the facts still disclosed a technical breach of the Customs law and Section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
Conclusion: The confiscability of the foreign currency was upheld.
Issue (ii): Whether the redemption fine and personal penalties required reduction or setting aside in the circumstances.
Analysis: Since the violation was treated as technical and the currency was largely legally acquired, the quantum of redemption fine and penalties was considered excessive. No separate role was shown against the director, while the company and the carrier were found liable only to a reduced extent. The claimant to U.S. $ 55 was already covered within the total confiscated amount and did not call for a separate order.
Conclusion: The redemption fine and the penalties on the company and one appellant were reduced, the penalty on the director was set aside, and the appeal of Shri T.T. Lapcha was dismissed.
Final Conclusion: The order sustaining confiscation was maintained, but the monetary consequences were substantially scaled down and one personal penalty was deleted, resulting in partial relief to the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: Where foreign currency is lawfully acquired but handled in a manner constituting only a technical breach, confiscation may be sustained while the redemption fine and penalties are moderated to reflect the limited nature of the contravention.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
