Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1977 (10) TMI 42

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner who arrived at Calcutta by air from Bangkok on June 28, 1975. On a search of his room in the hotel where he was staying in Calcutta, the Customs authorities found in his possession 1701 U.S. dollars and 4400 Canadian dollars which they seized as smuggled goods. On September 23, 1975 an Assistant Collector of Customs filed a petition of complaint in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, alleging, inter alia, that the appellant had brought in the foreign currency seized from his possession in violation of Section 13(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and was therefore liable to be convicted under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 13(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 imposes restri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fiscation under Section 111. 4. The Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the appellant under Section 135 of the Customs Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The Magistrate further ordered that the "goods involved in this case are confiscated to the State, if not already confiscated". The Calcutta High Court in revision affirmed the appellant's conviction but reduced the sentence of fine to Rs. 500/-, and affirmed the order of confiscation of the dollars, It is contended that the Magistrate had no power to order confiscation of the currency and the High Court was in error in affirming that order. 5. The order of confiscation was presumably made under Section 452(1) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y of being heard in the matter. Under Section 125 the officer adjudging a case of importation or exportation of any goods which is prohibited under the Customs Act or any other law, has a discretion to give to the owner of the goods an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the officer thinks fit. Section 126 lays down that on confiscation the goods shall vest in the Central Government and that the officer adjudging confiscation shall take and hold possession of the confiscated goods. Section 127 makes it clear that the award of any confiscation or penalty under the Customs Act does not prevent the infliction of any punishment to which the person concerned is liable under Chapter XVI of the Customs act or under any other law. Se....