Page 237 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : VIRENDER VERMA 571

India which has not been procured from authorized sources is ‘prohibited’ -
Therefore impugned foreign currency seized, falls in category of ‘prohibited
goods’ and liable for absolute confiscation under Sections 113, 113(d), 113(e)
113(h) and 113(i) ibid - Lower Authorities failed to appreciate facts of case in
correct perspective and ordered release of impugned currency on payment of
redemption fine which should have been confiscated under said Section with-
out giving an option of redemption - Impugned currency confiscated under
Sections 111 and 113 of Customs Act, 1962. [paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]
Penalty - Smuggling of prohibited goods - Evidence - Foreign Curren-
cy concealed inside inner linings of check in baggage - Apart from statement
of accused Shri Virender Verma recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act,
1962, that impugned forex, proceeds of legal business in Hong Kong, no cor-
roboratory evidence on record to verify veracity of claim - Since statement of
accused not corroborated from evidence on record, finding of adjudicating au-
thority that accused, owner of forex remains unsubstantiated - Role of Vi-
render Verma cannot be undermined in Hawala racket - Abetment to smug-
gling of impugned forex established - Accused liable for penalty under Sec-
tion 114 of Customs Act, 1962. [para 13]
Foreign Exchange Management Act - Penalty - On carrier of Foreign
Currency - Attempt to smuggle foreign exchange out of India - HELD : Lesser
amount of penalty imposed on accused as he is carrier of impugned currency -
Keeping in view gravity of offence and fact that co-accused, habitual offender,
higher quantum of penalty merits to be imposed - Penalty of ` 5 lacs (Rupees
five lacs) imposed by adjudicating authority under Section 114(i) of Customs
Act, 1962 read with Regulation 13 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export
and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2000 - Section 114(i) of Customs Act,
1962. [paras 14, 15]
Application partly allowed
CASES CITED
Commissioner v. Samynathan Murugesan — 2009 (247) E.L.T. 21 (Mad.) — Relied on ........ [Paras 7, 12]
Naresh J. Sukhawani v. Union of India — 1996 (83) E.L.T. 258 (S.C.) — Relied on ....................... [Para 10]
Om Prakash Bhatia v. Commissioner — 2003 (155) E.L.T. 423 (S.C.) — Referred ........................... [Para 7]
Ram Kumar v. Commissioner — 2015 (320) E.L.T. 368 (Del.) — Relied on ............................ [Paras 12, 14]
Samynathan Murugesan v. Commissioner — 2010 (254) E.L.T. A15 (S.C.)] .................................... [Para 7]
Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India — 1997 (89) E.L.T. 646 (S.C.) — Referred ...................... [Para 13]
Union of India v. Mohammed Aijaj Ahmed — 2009 (244) E.L.T. 49 (Bom.) — Relied on ............ [Para 12]
[Order]. - A Revision Application No. F. No. 380/34/B/2017-R.A., dated
3-8-2017 has been filed by the Commissioner of Customs, IGI Airport, T-3, Delhi
(hereinafter referred to as the applicant) against Order-in-Appeal No.
CC(A)/CUS/Air/2437-2438/2015, dated 28-12-2015, passed by the Commission-
er of Customs (Appeals), New Customs House, Near IGI Airport, Delhi-110037.
The order-in-appeal has modified the Additional Commissioner’s Order-in-
Original No. 81/2015, dated 3-3-2015 wherein the redemption fine on confiscated
foreign currency amounting to US$ 130500 (equivalent to INR 77,58,225/-) was
reduced from Rs. 9 lacs to Rs. 5 lacs, and Penalty of Rs. 7 lacs on Shri Virender
Verma has been waived. However, Penalty of Rs. 1.5 lacs on Shri Tushar Kumar
was upheld.
- EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  237