TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 762
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under : On 14-7-2003 at about 14:00 hours when the respondent accompanied by two ladies namely, Smt. Shobha Khira and Ms. Tina Khira had checked into board Indian Airlines Flight to Sharjah, officers of the appellant having received prior information intercepted the respondent and the two ladies accompanying him in order to find out if they were carrying with them any goods in contravention of the provisions of Section 135(1)(c)(ii) read with Section 113(d) of the Customs Act. Upon interrogation, it was noticed that the respondent and the said two ladies had already checked in their baggage but, were also carrying with them one hand bag each as cabin baggage....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The foreign currencies, according to the appellant, were also liable to confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act. After completion of the investigation, a complaint was filed against the respondent for prosecuting him under Section 135(1)(c)(ii) of the Customs Act. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 135(2) of the Customs Act and proceeded with the trial upon the respondent pleading not guilty to the charge so framed against him. Upon consideration of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the respondent under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and arguments of both sides, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found that the appellant miserably failed to prove the guilt of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on who has been previously convicted of similar offence or the offence under Section 136(1) of the Customs Act. No doubt, there is an allegation made in the complaint that the respondent has been convicted at least on two occasions on similar charges and therefore, framing of charge under Section 135(2) of the Customs Act cannot be said to be illegal. But, the complaint disclosed that this was not the only allegation. The other allegation related to export of currency in contravention of the FEMA Regulations and the provisions of Section 113(d) of the Customs Act. Yet, no charge for an offence punishable under Section 135(1)(c)(ii) was framed. It was a mistake. The impugned judgment and order however, appears to have made amends to the mist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by evidence on record. That is the reason why he allowed the respondent to redeem the foreign currencies as well as the Indian currency, simply on payment of some penalty. The penalty was imposed because it was found that the respondent had imported the said currencies without making any declaration at the time of his entry in India. However, it was particularly noted in the order that the respondent and his family members were entitled to import without declaration as much foreign currencies as were equivalent to US Dollar 15,000 and with declaration anything exceeding the said limit, with no upper limit. In other words, as per the said order only restriction was that import of foreign currencies equivalent to US Dollar up to 15,000 was pe....