2009 (12) TMI 654

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and Date Description & value of goods (Rs.) RF/PP Imposed as per Orders-in-Appeal (Rs.)       R.F. P.P. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 1. Chellani Mukesh 371/03/B/09-RA 270/B/ Mumbai- III/2008 B dt. 31-12-08 Air. Cus. 49/ETC/ 14/2008 dt. 31-12-08 Indian currency valued to Rs. 46,500/- Indian Currency absolutely confiscated Rs. 5,000/- 2. Brief facts of the case are that Air passenger Shri Chellani Mukesh of Mumbai failed to declare Indian currency Rs. 51500/- that he was carrying while going abroad on 25-08-08. After releasing Rs. 5000/-, the remaining currency Rs. 46500/- was absolutely confiscated by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Mum....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of law mentioned above. Therefore, the confiscation of said currency and imposition of personal penalty cannot be assailed. 8. Regarding applicant's plea to release the currency on payment of redemption fine under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962, Govt. observes that Section 125 of the Customs Act, provides that option of Redemption Fine is to be given in case the seized goods are not prohibited and if nature and circumstances of case so require. Govt. also observes that with regard to the currencies not being prohibited goods, Courts/Tribunal have been giving liberal interpretation as regards its absolute confiscation and generally released the currencies on payment of redemption fine u/s 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, under specia....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ibited then adjudicating officer shall give to the owner of goods as option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as officer thinks fit - It is only, when it is prohibited goods that the officer has discretions and it is open to him not to give the option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation". Similarly, the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in its order dated 23-7-09 in W.P. No. 1901 of 2003 in the case of UOI v. Mohammed Aijaj Ahmed and Others [2009 (244) E.L.T. 49 (Bom.)], has held that if the owner is not known, then a person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized could have been given an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. Such fine as the said officer thinks fit. Further, the revisionary author....