TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 1384
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Commissioner (Appeals) is erroneous. The Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the quantum of the redemption fine imposed by the Adjudicating Authority on the huge amount of the seized foreign currency, which are prohibited goods. The appellate authority has reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 5 lacs arbitrarily without giving any cogent reason to substantiate the relief. The Order-in-Appeal has also set aside the penalty imposed on Sh. Virender Verma. The revision application in Para No. 11.8 states as follows "the very fact of non-compliance of the conditions of export renders such goods liable for confiscation and for absolute confiscation in the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. Personal hearing in the matter was fixed on 18-9-2019 which was not attended by the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Tomar, Proxy Counsel appeared for the respondent and requested for copy of the Revision Application. Accordingly, the next date of hearing was fixed on 10-10-2019. Sh. Ritaj Kacker, Advocate attended the hearing on behalf of the respondent. He was asked to produce a copy of show cause notice issued to applicant along with the relied upon documents. No one appeared from the applic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; baggage; (d) currency and negotiable instruments; and (e) any other kind of movable property. Rule 7 of the Baggage Rules, 2016 stipulates as under : "Currency. - The import and export of currency under these rules shall be governed in accordance with the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2015, and the notifications issued thereunder." Section 11(2)(c) read with 11(2)(e) of Customs Act, 1962 prohibits import or export of goods for the purpose of prevention of smuggling or for conservation of foreign exchange and safeguarding balance of payments. From the evidence on record it is evident that a huge amount of foreign currency was recovered from the respondent, i.e., Tushar Kumar, on 3-7-2014 which was wrapped in black carbon paper concealed in inner lining of bag on the side walls. It is also not disputed by him that he did not declare the impugned currency to Customs officers at the airport and he did not have any documents or evidence showing lawful possession of the impugned currency. The cur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able Apex Court has observed as follows : "Applying the ratio of the judgment in the case of Om Prakash Bhatia v. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi reported in 2003 (155) E.L.T. 423 (S.C.) = 2003 (6) S.C.C. 161, to the facts of the case, we find that, in the present case, the assessee did not fulfil the basic eligibility criteria, which makes the imported item a prohibited goods; hence, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed." 8. The case File No. VIII(AP) 10/P&I/835C/Dep/2014 was called from Commissioner of Customs, IGI Airport, New Delhi. The statements recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 and other documentary evidence available in the file have been perused. 9. It is observed that Tushar Kumar in his statement tendered under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 has contended that he was carrying the impugned forex on behalf of Virender Verma for a consideration. He further contended that he had on an earlier occasion travelled along with Virender Verma to Hong Kong and carried forex amounting to $20000 for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/-. Therefore it is apparent that Tusha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent as a relevant factor meriting absolute confiscation. The Honourable High Court has held as under : "In the present case too, the concealment had weighed with the Commissioner to order absolute confiscation. He was right, the Tribunal erred." In a similar case Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in writ petition filed against G.O.I. Order No. 391-392/12-Cus., dated 9-10-2012 [2015 (320) E.L.T. 368 (Del.)], while dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner have made the following observation : "Para 8....The investigation conducted by customs and statement of passenger Shri Ram Kumar categorically reveal that said currencies did not belong to Shri Ram Kumar and he acted as carrier on behalf of somebody else....Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Surjeet Singh Chabra v. UOI - 1997 (84) E.L.T. 646 (S.C.) has observed that statement made before Customs Officer though retracted within 6 days, is an admission and binding since Customs Officers are not police officers. As such, the statement tendered before Customs is a valid evidence under law... Para 10....In view of the aforesaid position and the above discussion, we do not think that the applicant is en....