2015 (8) TMI 438 - HC - Customs

Import of baggages Non declaration of contents and value opting green channel - Petitioner-passenger arrived at Airport and handed over her passport and disembarkation slip to officials of company They were orally directed to complete Customs formalities, both officers opted for Green Channel where they were diverted by Customs officers for screening of baggage and further examination which resulted in confiscation of said baggages Held that - channel was opted by officers knowing fully well that petitioner had arrived from abroad, that petitioner alone would be able to make appropriate declaration and that contents of baggage were known to her and none else There was no declaration of value of goods carried by passenger Petitioner herself accepted all mistakes, including of non-filling up relevant column in slips or declaration Passenger did not in her documents declare value of goods imported by her Company officials also could not declare same to Customs and in terms of Section 77 of Customs act, 1962 Thus, impugned order does not suffer from any error of law Petition being devoid of merits, hereby dismissed Decided against assesse.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue dated 2nd January, 2014.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, dated 2nd January, 2014, through a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contended that she was a respected Indian citizen engaged in charitable work and a Trustee of the World Monument Fund. She returned from abroad and left the Airport terminal, authorizing company officials to clear her baggage. The officials were directed towards the Green Channel by a Customs officer, leading to a discrepancy in the impugned orders. The petitioner argued that the findings were contradictory, inconsistent, and ignored expert valuation reports. The petitioner denied any intention to take advantage of her position in Protocol and sought removal of the stigma imposed by the penalty. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the petitioner was responsible for not adhering to customs rules and regulations, enabling authorities to take action based on her admissions. The Revenue argued that passengers are responsible for complying with customs procedures upon embarkation, and there was no perversity in the impugned orders.

Upon perusing the concurrent orders, the Court found that the petitioner arrived at the airport and handed over her documents to company officials who opted for the Green Channel but were directed for further examination by Customs officers. The petitioner failed to declare the value of goods carried, leading to the discovery of various items during examination. The petitioner accepted her mistakes, including not filling up relevant columns in the declaration slips. The Court noted that the company officials' statements were not crucial, and the petitioner could not blame Customs for scrutinizing the baggage and documents. The Court found no perversity in the order and upheld the imposition of penalty based on valuation of goods and the petitioner's actions.

The Court rejected the petitioner's arguments, stating that the authorities were careful in obtaining opinions before finalizing the valuation. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's failure to declare the value of imported goods, handing over blank documents, and relying on proxies compounded the situation. The Court held that the penalty imposed was reasonable, considering the value of goods imported and the petitioner's responsibilities as a frequent traveler and responsible citizen. The Court concluded that the order did not suffer from any error of law or perversity warranting interference in writ jurisdiction, and thus dismissed the petition for lacking merit.