Customs confiscation of appellant's foreign currency deemed unjustified under RBI Regulations; appeal allowed

The Tribunal held that the confiscation of the appellant's foreign currency by Customs authorities was unjustified. It was found that the appellant's possession of currency was within the limits permitted by RBI Regulations, and there were no allegations of money laundering or other offenses against the appellant. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting the appellant consequential relief.

---

---

Issues:
- Confiscation of foreign currency by Customs authorities
- Requirement of declaration for currency possession
- Compliance with RBI Regulations
- Allegations of money laundering or other offenses

Confiscation of Foreign Currency by Customs Authorities:
The appellant, a Thailand citizen residing in Chennai, had foreign currency amounting to 20,000/- US $ seized by Customs authorities while boarding a plane to Singapore via Bangkok. The currency was confiscated under the impugned order as it had not been declared during Customs clearance. The appellant explained that he brought the currency from abroad and was taking it back as its proposed use in India did not occur.

Requirement of Declaration for Currency Possession:
The appellant argued that there was no legal obligation under Customs law for a passenger to declare the currency being carried. Additionally, the appellant contended that according to Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Regulations, a passenger could take currency up to 25,000/- US $ out of India. The respondent, however, disputed the appellant's claim of importing the currency into India as no declaration was filed by him upon arrival in India.

Compliance with RBI Regulations:
The Tribunal observed that there was no mandate to declare possession of currency when leaving India. Furthermore, the currency held by the appellant fell within the limit permitted by the RBI. Importantly, there were no allegations or findings of the appellant being involved in money laundering or any other criminal activity. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the confiscation of the currency was unjustified.

Allegations of Money Laundering or Other Offenses:
Given the absence of evidence implicating the appellant in money laundering or any offense, and considering the compliance with RBI Regulations regarding currency limits, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order. The appeal was allowed, providing the appellant with consequential relief. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court.

---