Appeal denied in customs case for currency confiscation & penalty under Customs Act; habitual smuggling deemed.

The appellant's appeal against the absolute confiscation of foreign currencies and penalty under Sections 113(d) and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 was rejected. The appellant's request for release of goods on payment of redemption fine was denied, with the adjudicating authority deeming the appellant a habitual smuggler based on evidence. The judgment emphasized the illegality of dealing in foreign exchange without permission and upheld the confiscation based on the appellant's history of smuggling activities, in line with precedents and relevant laws.

---

---

Issues:
- Absolute confiscation of foreign currencies under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962
- Penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against the absolute confiscation of foreign currencies equivalent to Indian currency of Rs. 31,17,995/- and a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Sections 113(d) and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant was intercepted at Chennai airport with foreign currencies, admitted to carrying them for others, and engaging in smuggling activities involving contraband goods.

2. The appellant argued for the release of goods on payment of redemption fine citing Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant claimed ownership of the foreign currencies and requested discretionary release based on previous tribunal decisions. However, the adjudicating authority did not extend the option to redeem the goods, considering the appellant a habitual smuggler based on evidence.

3. The learned Authorised Representative contended that the appellant's actions indicated habitual smuggling behavior, supported by relevant case laws. The appellant was found carrying foreign currency without permission, leading to confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.

4. The judgment referred to the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, and relevant regulations, highlighting the illegality of dealing in foreign exchange without permission. The case was compared to a similar situation where the High Court upheld confiscation due to unauthorized possession of foreign currency, emphasizing the appellant's history of smuggling activities.

5. The judgment concluded that the appellant's case mirrored previous decisions where confiscation was upheld based on habitual smuggling behavior. The appellant's plea for redemption was denied, considering the circumstances and evidence. The appeal was rejected based on the findings and precedents cited in the judgment.

---