LI Network
Published on: January 16, 2024 at 11:56 IST
The Delhi High Court underscored the significance of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, granting owners of goods a critical choice to pay a fine instead of facing confiscation, within a strict timeframe of 120 days.
The Court, led by Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, addressed a petition filed by a foreign national from Turkmenistan who was intercepted with USD 18,500.
Highlighting the time-sensitive nature of this option, the Court emphasized that owners must exercise it within the specified 120-day window from the date of the option.
The Court noted that since the seized goods were foreign currency, and the Order-in-Original directed the redemption fine and penalty to be realized from the total amount, the petitioner did not need to make any further choices.
The Writ Petition aimed to enforce the Adjudication Order-in-Original issued by the Additional Commissioner of Customs. The petitioner, intercepted at T-3, IGI Airport, New Delhi, with USD 18,500, deposited the seized currency with the Central Bank of India.
Despite failing to provide evidence for legal possession, the subsequent adjudication led to the confiscation of the currency, allowing redemption on payment of a fine within three months. The petitioner, through a Power of Attorney, later sought redemption, leading to the Writ Petition.
The Court acknowledged Section 125 of the Customs Act, granting discretionary powers to impose a fine instead of confiscation, with a stipulated 120-day window for the owner to exercise this option.
In this case, the Court observed that the Adjudicating Officer was expected to provide the option to pay a fine in place of confiscation. However, as the seized goods were foreign currency, the 120-day period did not apply.
The Court noted that the Order-in-Original was not contested in this writ petition.
Additionally, the Court pointed out that the seized currency was already in the possession of the respondent, and the Order-in-Original explicitly directed the realization of the redemption fine and penalty from the total amount, releasing the remaining sum to the petitioner.
The Court considered the petitioner’s request for release as an exercise of the option. As the Order-in-Original specified the process of realizing the fine and penalty, it implied that the petitioner had paid on the day of the order.
Consequently, the Court rejected the respondent’s contention that the payment was not made, deeming it unsustainable.
The petition was allowed, directing the respondent to release the remaining amount after realizing the redemption fine and penalty within two weeks from the date of the order in the case of Oguljeren Hajyyeva v Commissioner Of Customs.