Court overturns order for absolute confiscation, reinstates redemption fine citing lack of bond or goods.

The court set aside the order of absolute confiscation imposed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and reinstated the original order for confiscation with a redemption fine passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs. The judgment emphasized that without the goods subject to confiscation being available and no bond executed by the appellant, confiscation or redemption fine could not be imposed, aligning with previous decisions. The absence of enforceable security or the currency in possession led to the decision to uphold the initial order for confiscation.

---

---

Issues Involved:
- Seizure of Indian currency for illicit exportation under Customs Act, 1962.
- Merit of absolute confiscation versus allowing redemption fine under Section 125 of Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a passenger intercepted with Indian currency while traveling to Bhutan, failing to provide evidence for legal exportation. The initial order by the Additional Commissioner of Customs imposed confiscation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs with a redemption fine and personal penalty. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) later ordered absolute confiscation, leading to the current appeal.

2. During the appeal, the appellant's advocate argued that since the remaining goods were not in possession of Customs, confiscation was not viable. Citing precedents like Ramkhazana Electronic and Vikas Chandra cases, the advocate highlighted instances where goods were released upon payment of redemption fine, setting aside absolute confiscation.

3. The central issue raised was whether the seizure of Indian currency for attempted illicit exportation warranted absolute confiscation or if the option for redemption fine under Section 125 of Customs Act could be considered.

4. The judgment emphasized that if the goods subject to confiscation were not available, confiscation could not be ordered, and no redemption fine could be imposed. Precedents like Ramkhazana Electronic and Vikas Chandra cases supported this view, stating that goods not present for confiscation could not be fined under Sections 111(m) and 125 of Customs Act.

5. Similarly, in the present case, the residual currency was not in possession of the Department, and no bond was executed by the appellant. Without enforceable security or the currency available, confiscation or redemption fine could not be imposed, aligning with previous decisions like Ramkhazana Electronics case.

6. Consequently, the judgment set aside the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) order and reinstated the original order for confiscation passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs. This decision was based on the absence of goods for confiscation and the lack of an executed bond or available currency, rendering confiscation or redemption fine unenforceable.

---