TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (10) TMI 755
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rief, are that on 02.10.2004, the Officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted the appellant at Chennai airport, who was bound for Singapore. The appellant showed his passport and informed that he was carrying one handbag and that he did not have any checked in baggage. It is also informed that he was not in possession of any foreign currency or any other contraband. After a thorough search by DRI officer, it was found that the appellant was carrying foreign currencies equivalent to Indian currency of Rs. 31,17,995/-. The appellant in his statement dated 02.10.2004 admitted that he would hand over the foreign currencies to S/Shri Sikkader and Basha at Singapore. It is also admitted that he used to purchase electronic goods an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Customs, Chennai vide Final Order No.1142/2005, dated 23.08.2005 in Appeal No.C/253/1998. 4.1 He further submits that in the present case, the appellant is the owner of the foreign currencies and he was not a carrier and, therefore, the decision cited by the learned Authorised Representative would not be applicable in the present case. It is submitted that even if it is a prohibited item, the authorities concerned have discretionary powers to release the goods on payment of redemption fine, which should have been exercised in keeping with facts and circumstances of the present case, as has been confirmed by the Tribunal in the case of Felix Dores Fernandes (supra) and following the subsequent decisions. 5. On the other han....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the present case, admittedly, the appellant was carrying foreign currency without the permission of RBI and it was confiscated under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. As per Section 2(22) of the Customs Act, the 'goods' include currency and negotiable instruments. I find that on an identical situation, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of S. Faisal Khan (supra) upheld the decision of the Tribunal whereby the petitioner was intercepted by the customs at the Departure Hall of Chennai Airport on 06-05-2000 and on examination of his baggage, the Authorities recovered Indian currencies amounting to Rs. 2,03,358/-. The petitioner in his statement stated that the money belong to one Shri Abdulla and has handed it over to one Shri R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hargovind Das case referred supra, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for the limited purpose to consider the question as to whether to grant the option of redemption or not. On remand, the adjudicating authority took up the matter for consideration and after examining the entire factual position did not exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. This order was passed on 21-8-2001 after considering the factual and legal position and the same has been confirmed in appeal as well as in Revision. The orders passed by the Original authority, Appellate authority and the Revisional authority are cogent and supported by reasons. The authorities took note of the voluntary statement recorded under ....