Confiscation of prohibited currency under customs law follows on breach of import prohibition; redemption may be waived if not timely claimed.

Prohibited Indian currency brought from Nepal was treated as liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act because the import prohibition under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was undisputed, and ignorance of that prohibition did not excuse the breach. The note also states that redemption under Section 125 is a statutory right capable of waiver, and since the owner had not sought redemption before the appellate authority, that relief was unavailable at a later stage. The personal penalty under Section 112 was set aside, as the appeal did not sustain that aspect of the order.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the seized Indian currency notes were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act on the facts proved; (ii) whether the owner was entitled to redemption of the confiscated goods under the Customs Act despite not claiming such relief earlier; and (iii) whether the personal penalty imposed under the Customs Act was sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the seized Indian currency notes were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act on the facts proved.

Analysis: The seizure took place within Indian territory and the currency was admittedly brought from Nepal. The import prohibition under Notification No. 81/89-R.B. issued under Section 13 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was not disputed. By operation of Section 68 of that Act, the prohibited import attracted confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. Ignorance of the prohibition did not excuse the breach, and the finding that no stage for confiscation had been reached could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The currency notes were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): whether the owner was entitled to redemption of the confiscated goods under the Customs Act despite not claiming such relief earlier.

Analysis: Although Section 125 of the Customs Act contemplates redemption, the owner did not seek that relief before the appellate authority or in the present proceedings. The right to redemption was treated as a statutory right capable of waiver, and the conduct of the owner was held to amount to waiver of that right. In those circumstances, redemption could not be granted at that stage.

Conclusion: No redemption relief was available, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (iii): whether the personal penalty imposed under the Customs Act was sustainable.

Analysis: The Revenue did not assail the setting aside of penalty, and the order imposing penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act was not supported by any specific challenge in the appeal.

Conclusion: The penalty was set aside, in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order was reversed on confiscation and redemption, but the penalty did not survive, leaving the revenue's appeal successful only in part.

Ratio Decidendi: Where prohibited goods are admittedly imported in breach of a statutory prohibition, confiscation follows under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, and a redemption right under Section 125 may be waived if not asserted in time.

---