FAYAZ GULAM GODIL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr. Kantawala in support of these appeals.

(2.) In his submission the appeals raise substantial questions of law and as proposed in the Memo of Appeal in Appeal No. 24 of 2015 which is identical to the other appeal. Mr. Kantawala has taken us through these proposed questions to submit that one of them is based on the contention raised before the Tribunal that a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rostam Parvaresh Vs. Union of India reported in 2010 (259) E.L.T. 342, would bind the Tribunal. Secondly, whether it is legal and proper for the Tribunal to not consider the position with regard to applicability of Sec. 111 and Sec. 113 of the Customs Act, 1962.

(3.) This is not a case where the Indian currency was tried to be smuggled out of India. This was a case of an alleged smuggling of foreign currency, but the act was complete on the appellants leaving the Indian shores and reaching Hong Kong. Thereafter, having returned from Hong Kong allegedly with the currency does not merit application of Sec. 113 of the Customs Act, 1962. Rather, Sec. 111 should have been applied. Thirdly, the discretion insofar as the option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation should have been exercised in favour of the appellants. In large number of cases even today, the Revenue has been allowing the option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. There cannot be different yardsticks as between the others who default in compliance with law and the appellant before this Court.