Sh Mohammed Mustafa Vs Pr. Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Hyderabad)
In the case of Sh Mohammed Mustafa Vs Pr. Commissioner of Customs, adjudicated by CESTAT Hyderabad, the question arose regarding the absolute confiscation of foreign currency seized from the Appellant. This article delves into the intricate details of the case, analyzing the applicability of various sections of the Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) 1999.
The crux of the matter revolved around whether the actions of the Appellant constituted an attempt to export prohibited goods or merely an intention to do so. The Customs Officers alleged that the foreign currency seized from the Appellant was intended for smuggling out of India, warranting confiscation and penalties under relevant sections of the Customs Act and FEMA.
However, upon scrutiny, it was revealed that the Appellant was intercepted by CISF officials outside the customs area, indicating that he had not yet entered the airport’s jurisdiction. This raised questions about the jurisdiction of the Customs Officers to confiscate the currency based on non-declaration, as the Appellant had not reached the stage of entering the customs area.
The Tribunal noted that while there might have been an intention to smuggle, it did not equate to an attempt to export prohibited goods. Moreover, the discretion to confiscate goods should consider all relevant facts and not be arbitrary. Thus, the absolute confiscation of the currency was deemed unjustified.
