By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JAN 09, 2017: INDIAN currency amounting to Rs.49,73,000/- was seized from the check-in baggage of the appellant who was bound for Dubai by Cathay Pacific flight from Mumbai on 10 th March 2005.

The adjudicating authority held that the currency belonged, not to the appellant, but to another individual who, as per claim of the appellant, had requested him to carry the contraband and, for that reason, confiscated the currency.

The impugned order confiscated the currency u/s 113 of Customs Act, 1962 without option to redeem the same and imposed penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- on appellant u/s 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The appellant is before the CESTAT against this order.

The Bench remarkedthat the adjudicating Commissioner had proceeded on the assumption that option to redeem is a discretion afforded to the adjudicating authority and for release only to the owner of the goods.

It was thereafter observed -

"…This is an erroneous interpretation. An adjudicating authority is vested with that discretion only in relation to prohibited goods; indeed, it is moot whether currency is goods. Currency is not prohibited goods and, therefore, the adjudicating authority is bound to allow redemption to the person from whom it was seized."

The CESTAT also viewed that having conceded that the appellant is merely a carrier, imposing such a harsh penalty (of Rs.5 lakhs)on the appellant was not warranted.

In fine, the Tribunal held that the impugned order required modification, thus -

++ The option to redeem the confiscated goods is allowed on payment of Rs.5,00,000/- within four weeks.

++ Penalty is reduced to Rs.1,00,000/-.

The Appeal was disposed of.

(See 2017-TIOL-70-CESTAT-MUM)