2018 (9) TMI 459

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsel, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard Mr. A.K. Jayaraj, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. D.S. Seethalakshmi, the Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, challenging the order passed by the first respondent, exercising his powers under Section 129DD(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, (hereinafter, referred....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on fine from Rs. 3,50,000/- to Rs. 1,85,000/-. However, the factual findings rendered by the third respondent have been confirmed. 3. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, Section 113(d) of the Act, could not have been invoked, as there is no prohibition imposed under the Act, or any other law, to take the Indian currency outside the country. 4. I am n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Indian currency did not cross the customs barrier, and before that, it was seized, and therefore, the question of invoking Section 113 does not arise. 6. It is settled legal principle that the term "prohibition" shall include "restrain". Section 2(33) of the Act defines the term "prohibited goods" to mean any goods, which is not only prohibited under the Act, or prohibition under any ot....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he currencies, which were seized from the petitioner and confiscated by the order passed by the third respondent are undoubtedly prohibited goods, and the power exercised by the third respondent is valid and proper. That apart, this Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not re-examine the factual position, as it has been appreciated by the second ....