Confiscation of foreign currency sustained where possession lacked lawful entitlement and surrounding facts justified presumption of illicit movement.

Possession of a large quantity of foreign currency without any claim of ownership or proof of lawful entitlement supported confiscation under the Customs and foreign exchange laws. The Court held that, where the person carrying the currency could not identify the true owner and no one established a lawful right to possess it, the Tribunal erred in directing return of the currency. On the peculiar facts, presumptions could be drawn from the surrounding circumstances as to the intended movement and use of the currency, and strict direct proof of attempted export was not necessary. The confiscation order was therefore sustained and the Revenue's position accepted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the confiscation of foreign currency seized from the respondent and directing its return, despite the respondent not claiming ownership and the actual owner remaining unidentified.

Analysis: The seizure concerned a large amount of foreign currency recovered from the respondent, who stated that he was merely carrying it for delivery to another person. The Court distinguished earlier authorities where the seizure or confiscation failed for want of notice or where ownership was undisputed. Here, the respondent neither claimed ownership nor identified the true owner, and no one came forward to establish lawful entitlement to the currency. In these circumstances, the Court held that a direction to return the currency to a person who was not lawfully entitled to possess it would defeat the object of the Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The Court further held that, on the peculiar facts, presumptions were warranted as to the intended use and movement of the foreign currency, and the Tribunal erred in interfering with confiscation.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the confiscation order, and the answer to the referred question was in the negative, in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a person is found in possession of a large amount of foreign currency, claims no ownership, cannot identify the true owner, and no lawful entitlement to possession is shown, confiscation may be sustained on the basis of presumptions drawn from the surrounding circumstances even if the exact statutory ingredients of attempted export are not established with direct evidence.

---