2015 (7) TMI 1086 - HC - Customs

Seeking non-release of foreigners on bail which are in judicial custody - brought six bricks of gold - goods seized and liable to be confiscated - Held that - as per Chapter 71 of Classifications of Export & Import Items (with Customs Tariff Rates & Exemptions 2015-20) under Notes in clause 4 (A) it is prescribed that precious metal meats silver, gold and platinum. The duty upon the said metals is 24.463% and policy on the said metal is free to import. The gold is not banned to be imported in India, but it comes under the restricted items which can be imported only with certain conditions and under policy which is obviously not available to the respondents. Therefore, no doubt, the seized goods are liable for confiscation, penalty and to be dealt under the Customs Act. By granting bail, the learned trial court has not discharged the respondents from the case. Simply because they are foreigners cannot be kept detained in judicial custody if they are entitled to be released on bail. Further the respondents are directed to surrender their pass-ports before the Trial Court. The learned trial court is at liberty to release the respondents on the same terms and conditions as imposed vide its order dated 29.06.2015 and by this Court. - Decided against the revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Bail application based on smuggling of gold bars without declaration.
2. Granting of bail to foreign nationals involved in smuggling activities.
3. Discrepancy in the investigation and judicial custody of the respondents.
4. Legal provisions regarding import of gold and its confiscation under the Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought directions to set aside an order related to the recovery and seizure of gold bars from respondents arriving at the airport. The respondents admitted to concealing the gold bars for smuggling. The bail applications were initially dismissed but later granted, leading to the petitioner's challenge.

2. The petitioner argued that the respondents, being foreign nationals, posed a flight risk and had no links in India for smuggling activities. The court stayed the bail order and emphasized the seriousness of smuggling gold, a prohibited item, by individuals not eligible to import it, warranting a different approach in dealing with the case.

3. The investigation revealed non-cooperation from the respondents, with one admitting to previous smuggling activities. The court cited precedents to justify denying bail based on the seriousness of the offense and the risk of absconding. The court extended judicial custody due to ongoing investigations and the nature of the offense.

4. The court highlighted the legal framework governing the import of gold and the restricted conditions for its importation. The seized gold was deemed liable for confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that being foreigners did not warrant continued judicial custody if bail conditions were met. The court directed the surrender of passports and maintained the terms of the bail order.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, providing insights into the legal arguments, precedents cited, and the court's reasoning in dismissing the petition challenging the bail granted to the respondents involved in smuggling activities.