TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (12) TMI 532
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....V) (Rupees Twelve lakhs forty nine thousand and three only) and foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 84,539/- (Rupees Eighty four thousand five hundred and thirty nine) under Section 113(d) & (h) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 13 & 67 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. He has also confiscated 13 packets of hair clips valued at Rs. 5000/- (CIF) (Rupees Five thousand only) and two polythene bags and the packing tape of no commercial value used to wrap the gold jewellery under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962. He has also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) on the appellant under Section 114(i) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 2-10-1999 officers of the Directo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....qat Ali, which culminated in the order of adjudication as noted above. 3. Shri A. Ganesh, learned Counsel for the appellant referred to the grounds of appeal and submitted that initial statement given by the appellant on 2-10-99 was retracted by him on 20-10-1999 wherein he has stated that the gold jewellery belonged to him. He submitted that the appellant is a Srilankan National and there was no need for him to have taken permission for taking gold jewellery to Sri Lanka inasmuch as there is no prohibition or restriction imposed by the Reserve Bank of India for export of gold jewellery. He has also invited our attention to Section 13 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 wherein the Reserve Bank of India has permitted any pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In the case of Halithu Ibrahim (supra) there was a declaration of the foreign currency by the appellant therein whereas in the present case, there was no such declaration. In the case of Philip Fernandes, the currency was shown to have been obtained legitimately by the appellant therein, in Dubai. In the case of Nasakika Hoshino, foreign currency was not concealed in any secret chamber. On the other hand learned JCDR pressed into service the judgment of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Harinder Pal Singh Shergill v. CC, Mumbai reported in 2003 (160) E.L.T. 358 (Tri.-Del.) wherein in similar circumstances option to redeem the foreign currency belonging to someone else was not given. In the circumstances he submitted that the lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have been rightly confiscated. In terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, goods which is not prohibited cannot be confiscated absolutely. So far as the foreign currency is concerned, it is admitted by the appellant himself that the same was not declared before the Customs authorities. In terms of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, (Section 13), foreign currency can only be taken out of India by a person who is not a resident in India, provided he has, on arrival in India, declared to the Customs authorities about the fact of bringing in of the foreign currency. As noted above, there was no such declaration made in the present case and an attempt has been made to smuggle out the foreign currency. In the case law cited by the ....