Tribunal allows appeal, permits redemption of confiscated currency with fine, reduces penalty under Customs Act.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, permitting redemption of the confiscated currency upon payment of a fine and reducing the penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant's attempt to export currency beyond the permissible limit was deemed a violation justifying confiscation, despite the appellant's claim of legal procurement and lack of awareness of export regulations. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proportionate punishment and exercised discretion in allowing redemption of the currency on payment of a suitable fine.

---

---

Issues:
1. Seizure and confiscation of currency exceeding permissible limits under FEMA regulations.
2. Maintainability of appeal before the Tribunal.
3. Legal procurement of currency and lack of awareness of export regulations.
4. Confiscation and penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 1: Seizure and confiscation of currency exceeding permissible limits under FEMA regulations:

The appellant was intercepted with excess Indian currency and Thai Baht while attempting to travel abroad, violating FEMA regulations. The appellant argued that the currency was legally obtained from personal savings and that he was unaware of the export restrictions. However, the Customs Act deems goods liable for confiscation regardless of knowledge. The Tribunal found the attempted export of currency beyond the limit constituted a violation, satisfying the criteria for confiscation under Section 113D of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 2: Maintainability of appeal before the Tribunal:

The Department contended that the appeal related to baggage and should be presented before a competent authority, not the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal clarified that currency and baggage are distinct under the Customs Act, making appeals regarding currency seizures permissible before the Tribunal. Precedents such as Vinod KR. Shaw and Rajesh Kumar Ishwar Parikh supported the Tribunal's decision, establishing the appeal's maintainability.

Issue 3: Legal procurement of currency and lack of awareness of export regulations:

The appellant claimed truthful declaration of the currency during interception, arguing lack of immediate recording of his statement and non-provision of relied-upon documents with the show cause notice. Despite the appellant's assertion of legal procurement and ignorance of export rules, the Tribunal emphasized the strict regulations under FEMA, which prohibit carrying Indian currency exceeding specified limits. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's actions constituted an attempt to export currency beyond the permissible limit, justifying confiscation under the Customs Act.

Issue 4: Confiscation and penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962:

The original and appellate authorities had ordered absolute confiscation of the currency and imposed a penalty under Section 114. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances of the case, found absolute confiscation disproportionate. Citing the need for a balanced decision, the Tribunal allowed redemption of the confiscated currency on payment of a fine, reducing the penalty imposed under Section 114. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proportionate punishment and exercised discretion in permitting redemption of the currency upon payment of a suitable fine and penalty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, permitting redemption of the confiscated currency upon payment of a fine and reducing the penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.

---