Tribunal overturns penalty for undeclared currency, emphasizes fair hearing

The Tribunal set aside the confiscation and penalty imposed on the appellant for carrying undeclared Indian currency at Chennai airport, citing the appellant's right to redeem the confiscated currency under Section 125. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication to ensure procedural fairness and reconsideration of the penalty, emphasizing the importance of allowing the appellant an effective hearing. This decision underscores the significance of adhering to legal principles and providing opportunities for redemption in customs cases involving currency contraventions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Seizure of undeclared Indian currency at the Chennai airport.
2. Confiscation and penalty imposed under the Customs Act.
3. Allegation of non-voluntary statement by the appellant.
4. Request for redemption of confiscated currency.
5. Applicability of Section 125 for redemption.

Analysis:

1. The appellant was found with undeclared Indian currency amounting to Rs. 18 lakhs at the Chennai airport, intending to board a flight to Dubai. The currency was seized under Sections 113(d), (e), and (h) of the Customs Act for contravention of Foreign Exchange Management Act and Regulations. A penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was also imposed on the appellant.

2. The appellant challenged the confiscation and penalty, claiming that his statement was not voluntary. Despite the absence of representation during the hearing, the Tribunal proceeded with the appeal. The Tribunal acknowledged the prevalence of currency-related frauds but recognized the appellant's right to redeem the confiscated currency.

3. The Tribunal noted the importance of allowing the appellant to redeem the confiscated currency and cited precedents where redemption was permitted upon payment of a reasonable fine under Section 125. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh adjudication, including a reconsideration of the penalty.

4. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of providing the appellant with an effective hearing before making any final decisions in the case. By allowing the appeal through remand, the Tribunal ensured that the appellant would have the opportunity to present his case and seek redemption of the confiscated currency in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for de novo adjudication, considering the appellant's request for redemption, highlights the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles in customs matters involving currency contraventions.

---