2016 (6) TMI 628

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch is identical to the other appeal. Mr. Kantawala has taken us through these proposed questions to submit that one of them is based on the contention raised before the Tribunal that a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rostam Parvaresh vs. Union of India reported in 2010 (259) ELT 342 would bind the Tribunal. Secondly, whether it is legal and proper for the Tribunal to not consider the position with regard to applicability of section 111 and section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. This is not a case where the Indian currency was tried to be smuggled out of India. This was a case of an alleged smuggling of foreign currency, but the act was complete on the appellants leaving the Indian shores and reaching Hong Kong. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e sought to be retracted. However, we do not find that in law the authorities were prevented from issuing a show cause notice. The Customs Act, 1962, refers to both the terms - "export" as defined in section 2(18) and the term "import" as defined in section 2(23). The term "goods" as defined in section 2(22) includes currency and negotiable instruments. The term "prohibited goods" is defined in section 2(33) and reads as under : "2. Definitions.- (1). ... ... ... ... ... (33) "prohibited goods" means any goods the import or export of which is subject to any prohibition under this Act or any other law for the time being in force but does not include any such goods in respect of which the conditions subject to which....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....;prohibited goods' has been understood and applied in the above circumstances. The question was how they should be dealt with in the discretionary power of the authority. Whether there should be absolute confiscation or a redemption permitted. We do not find either in the order of admission of the Customs Appeal No.107 of 2012 or in the Division Bench order relied upon by Mr. Kantawala anything which would enable us to entertain the present appeals. Before the Division Bench in Rostam Parvaresh (supra), the argument was that the Revisional Authority failed to consider a specific contention raised by the petitioner based on various judgments of the appellate as well that of the Revisional authority wherein the entire confiscated currenci....