Page 204 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

250 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

CASE CITED
Mangalam Organics Ltd. v. Union of India — 2017 (349) E.L.T. 369 (S.C.) — Relied on .............. [Para 18]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Sunil Kumar, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
S/Shri Rajesh Gogna, CGSC, Amit Bansal, SSC with
Aman Rewaria and Ms. Vipasha Mishra, Advocates,
for the Respondent.
[Judgment per : D.N. Patel, CJ. (Oral)]. - CM APPL. No. 49609/2019 (ex-
emption) : Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 12110/2019
1. Aggrieved by Order No. 04/19-COS, dated 21st August, 2019,
passed by the Revisionary Authority in the Government of India, under Section
129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “the Customs Act”),
the present writ petition has been filed by Raju Sharma and Surender Gupta, the
respondents in the said Revision Application.
2. The issue in controversy is narrow, and a brief overview of the facts
would, therefore, suffice.
3. Petitioner No. 1 Raju Sharma was intercepted, by the officers of the
Customs, when he was about to board Flight No. EK517, for Dubai on 6th Febru-
ary, 2015. Personal search of Petitioner No. 1 resulted in the recovery of, inter alia,
Indian currency of ` 4 lacs and 40 Dirhams. The foreign currency, being within
the permissible limit for carriage abroad, was returned to Petitioner No. 1. As
Petitioner No. 1 was unable to produce any document, evidencing licit posses-
sion of the Indian currency of ` 4 lacs, the said currency was seized by the Cus-
toms officials under Section 110 of the Customs Act, purportedly as they had rea-
son to believe that it was liable to confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs
Act read with the provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (here-
inafter referred to as “FEMA”).
4. Investigations followed. The petitioners waived, in writing, issuance
of show cause notice and, consequently, personal hearing was fixed, before the
Assistant Commissioner, Customs (AC), on 19th July, 2016.
5. The Chartered Accountant, who appeared on behalf of Petitioner No.
1, during personal hearing, pleaded ignorance of law.
6. The case was adjudicated by the AC vide Order-in-Original No.
133/2016-17, dated 2nd August, 2016. The AC held that, as per the Foreign Ex-
change Management (Export & Import of Currency) (Amendment) Regulations,
2014 read with the provisions of the FEMA, Petitioner No. 1 was entitled to carry,
out of India, Indian currency upto ` 25,000/-. Even while accepting that the cur-
rency, in possession of Petitioner No. 1, belonged to him, the AC found that the
provisions of the Customs Act had, nevertheless, been contravened, rendering
the Indian currency, to the extent it was in excess of ` 25,000/-, liable to confisca-
tion under Section 113 of the Customs Act. It was also found that, as Petitioner
No. 1 was carrying the currency on the directions of Petitioner No. 2, both the
petitioners were liable to penalty, under Section 114 of the Customs Act.
7. Resultantly, the AC ordered confiscation of the excess Indian curren-
cy of ` 3,75,000/- under Section 113 of the Customs Act, but permitted redemp-

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  220