2011 (6) TMI 583 - CGOVT - Customs

Revision application baggage re-export - goods were in commercial quantity and did not appear to be a bona fide baggage, the said goods were placed under seizure - goods which have been confiscated, were being smuggled in by the passenger without declaring the same to the Customs and are in commercial quantity Held that - passenger had grossly mis-declared the goods with intention to evade duty and smuggle the goods into India. As per the provision of Section 80 of Customs Act, 1962 when the baggage of the passenger contains article which is dutiable or prohibited and in respect of which the declaration is made under Section 77, the proper officer on request of passenger detain such article for the purpose of being returned to him on his leaving India. Since passenger neither made true declaration nor requested for detention of goods for re-export, before customs at the time of his arrival at Airport. So the re-export of said goods cannot be allowed under Section 80 of Customs Act.

Summary

Issues:
- Revision application against Order-in-Appeal No. 50/2010/CUS/ Commr. (A)-AHD
- Confiscation of goods for smuggling by a passenger
- Appeal for re-export of seized goods
- Delay in filing the revision application
- Condonation of delay in filing the revision application
- Re-export of goods not allowed under Section 80 of Customs Act

Analysis:
1. The revision application was filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 50/2010/CUS/ Commr. (A)-AHD by the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad. The case involved a passenger, Shri Hemal K. Shah, arriving at SVPI Airport, Ahmedabad, who failed to declare goods in commercial quantity, leading to their seizure under the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority determined the value of seized goods and imposed penalties. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the confiscation but allowed re-export on payment of a redemption fine and reduced penalty.

2. The revision application challenged the appellate authority's decision, citing errors in appreciating the legal position. It argued that goods confiscated for smuggling cannot be re-exported, as per legal precedents like the case of CC, Kolkata v. Grand Prime Ltd. The applicant contended that once goods are confiscated, re-export cannot be allowed, contrary to the appellate authority's decision to permit re-export on payment of a redemption fine and reduced penalty.

3. The respondent argued against the condonation of delay in filing the revision application, claiming no sufficient grounds for the delay. They contended that re-export of goods should be allowed post-confiscation, as the person becomes the owner of the goods, and exercising the redemption option is permissible.

4. The government, after reviewing the case records and submissions, addressed the issue of delay in filing the revision application. Despite the delay, the government decided to condone it and proceed with the application on merit. The government noted that the confiscated goods, undervalued by the passenger, were intended for smuggling, making re-export impermissible under Section 80 of the Customs Act, 1962.

5. Consequently, the government set aside the Order-in-Appeal and reinstated the Order-in-Original, ruling that the re-export of the seized goods was not allowed under the Customs Act. The revision application was deemed successful, and the decision was ordered accordingly.