2007 (4) TMI 566 - AT - Customs

Absolute Confiscation - Gold - Baggage Rules - Held that - Under Section 125 of the Customs Act, option for redemption against payment of fine is available to the appellant in respect of gold also. There is no bar against such option by reason of the goods being an item notified under Section 123 of the Act or for any other reasons - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure and confiscation of gold at Chennai Airport.
2. Appellant's denial and subsequent admission of concealing gold.
3. Confiscation order by the Commissioner under Customs Act.
4. Imposition of penalty on the appellant.
5. Appeal against the Commissioner's order.

Analysis:

1. The appellant was intercepted at Chennai Airport by DRI officers upon his arrival from Singapore. Despite denying carrying any gold initially, 111 broken bits of gold biscuits weighing 2548.3 gms were found in his baggage. As the appellant lacked a valid permit for gold import into India, the goods were seized and valued at Rs. 10,34,355/- under a mahazar.

2. Subsequently, the appellant admitted to concealing the gold and not declaring it to customs authorities. In the adjudication of a show-cause notice, the Commissioner ordered the absolute confiscation of the gold under various provisions of Section 111 of the Customs Act. Other seized goods were also confiscated, albeit with an option for redemption, and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the appellant under Section 112 (a) of the Act.

3. The appeal challenged the Commissioner's order of absolute confiscation. The appellant, through a letter, waived his right to be personally heard and sought exoneration from the penalty. The Tribunal, after reviewing the appeal grounds and submissions, found that the appellant should have been given the option for redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act, despite the goods being notified under Section 123. The Tribunal set aside the confiscation order and directed the Commissioner to provide the appellant with the redemption option after determining a reasonable fine amount. The Commissioner was also allowed to reassess the penalty, ensuring the appellant's right to a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case for further proceedings, emphasizing the importance of providing the appellant with the opportunity for redemption and a fair hearing. The judgment highlighted the significance of procedural fairness and the application of relevant provisions under the Customs Act in cases of seizure and confiscation of goods.