Absolute confiscation of foreign currency upheld where ownership and lawful acquisition were not proved.

The Tribunal treated the High Court's reference decision as binding and not a casual observation, and also relied on the later writ order directing conformity with that ruling, so the earlier Tribunal view was modified. On the merits, where no person claimed ownership, the true owner was not identified, and lawful acquisition of the seized foreign currency was not proved, the circumstances supported an inference of illegal importation even without direct evidence. Absolute confiscation was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier order of the Tribunal setting aside confiscation could be modified in view of the High Court's reference decision, and whether the seized foreign currency was liable to absolute confiscation.

Analysis: The High Court's reference decision was treated as binding and not merely casual observation. The later writ order also recorded that the Tribunal's earlier view had been set aside and directed conformity with the High Court's decision. In the absence of any claim of ownership, identification of the true owner, or proof of lawful acquisition of the seized foreign currency, the circumstances justified an inference of illegal importation notwithstanding the absence of direct evidence. The Tribunal accordingly held that the seized foreign currency could validly be confiscated absolutely.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the seized foreign currency was upheld and the earlier Tribunal order was modified against the applicant.

---