Successors impleaded in appeal after appellant's death. Confiscation contested for tech purchase within limits. Penalty reduced.

The successors were allowed to be impleaded in the appeal after the original appellant's death, ensuring continuity. The appeal contested the confiscation of US$55,500 equivalent foreign currency, arguing it was for technology purchase and within legal limits. The Tribunal found absolute confiscation unjustified due to legal passenger limits and suspicions of illegal transactions. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 1 lakh, with the appellant allowed to redeem the confiscated amount on payment of Rs. 2 lakh, considering permissible limits and lack of necessity for severe penalties. Consequential relief was granted to the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
1. Impleadment of successors in appeal
2. Confiscation of foreign currency
3. Justification of confiscation and penalty

Impleadment of Successors in Appeal:
The judgment addresses the issue of impleading successors in an appeal following the death of the original appellant. The application from the successors to implead as appellant is allowed, ensuring continuation of the appeal process despite the appellant's demise.

Confiscation of Foreign Currency:
The appeal challenges the confiscation of US$ 55,500 equivalent foreign currency carried by the deceased out of India. The appellant claimed the currency was intended for negotiating and purchasing technology, arguing that no RBI clearance was required for remittances up to US $ 1,00,000 at the relevant time. The Tribunal considered the legal provisions allowing passengers to carry up to US $ 25,000 and found that absolute confiscation was not justified. The currency not being remitted through legal channels and the appellant's denial to customs officers were highlighted as indications of potential illegal transactions.

Justification of Confiscation and Penalty:
The judgment delves into the justification of the confiscation and penalty imposed on the appellant. While acknowledging the appellant's entitlement to make remittances for technology purchase, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the currency transaction process. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the absolute confiscation, allowing redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 2 lakh and reducing the penalty to Rs. 1 lakh. The decision was based on the permissible amount for passengers to carry abroad and the lack of necessity for absolute confiscation and a heavy penalty. The appellant was granted consequential relief as applicable.

---