Tribunal orders return of confiscated currency, deeming rejection of refund unjust.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing Customs authorities to promptly return the confiscated currency exceeding permissible limits under Foreign Exchange Management Regulations to the appellant or their authorized representative. The Tribunal found the rejection of the refund claim for the redemption fine unjust, emphasizing the lack of a specified time limit for redemption in the original confiscation order. It held that the failure to adjust the fine from the confiscated currency and the subsequent denial of return constituted de facto absolute confiscation, contrary to the Commissioner's decision.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Confiscation of currency exceeding permissible limits under Foreign Exchange Management Regulations.
2. Redemption of confiscated currency on payment of a fine.
3. Adjustment of redemption fine against confiscated currency.
4. Rejection of refund claim for redemption fine.
5. Lack of time limit for redemption of confiscated currency.
6. Delay in returning confiscated currency.
7. Authority's discretion in adjusting redemption fine against confiscated goods.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the confiscation of foreign and Indian currency from the appellant exceeding permissible limits under the Foreign Exchange Management Regulations. The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged the appellant's proof of importing foreign currency and accepted explanations for most amounts but imposed a redemption fine on the excess US $10,000 due to non-declaration at arrival. The Commissioner allowed redemption of the confiscated currency on payment of a fine of Rs. 1.75 lakh.

2. The appellant requested adjustment of the redemption fine from the confiscated currency and return of the remaining amount. However, the request was rejected by Customs authorities. The appellant later deposited the redemption fine and sought the return of the confiscated currency, which was also denied by the Assistant Commissioner (Refund) citing failure to exercise the redemption option within a reasonable time.

3. The appellant appealed the rejection of the refund claim before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the decision, stating no adjustment of redemption fine against confiscated goods was permissible. The appellant contended that the delay in redeeming the currency was due to Customs' unfair attitude and argued for immediate return of the confiscated currency upon depositing the redemption fine.

4. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's case, noting that no time limit was set for redemption in the original confiscation order. The failure to adjust the redemption fine from the confiscated currency and the subsequent denial of return amounted to de facto absolute confiscation, contrary to the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing Customs authorities to return the confiscated currency promptly to the appellant or their authorized representative.

---