2015 (11) TMI 32 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of gold bars - Six bars recovered concealed in shoes and pant pockets - Foreign currency and Indian currency also found - Penalty imposed under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 - Revenue contends that passengers were intercepted after they crossed green channel thus claim of appellants that they have not crossed Customs barriers is not correct - Total quantity brought by them is much more than admissible quantity - Held That - In absence of any challenge to Mahazar and cross examination of Mahazar with witness, it is not possible to accept claim of the appellants that they were intercepted in the Customs hall and had not crossed the Customs barriers - True declaration could have been made in disembarkation card in which case, no case could have been made against the appellants at all. Margin has gone up now since exchange rate between dollar and rupee is favourable - Found no reason to allow redemption on payment of fine under facts and circumstances - Penalties imposed under Sections 112(a) and 114AA is harsh - Because of seizure of gold and confiscation thereafter it cannot be said short levy has taken place - Penalties set aside - Decided partially in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure and confiscation of gold bars and currency at the airport.
2. Allegations of mis-declaration and concealment by the passengers.
3. Legal interpretation of import regulations regarding gold brought into India.
4. Challenge to the confiscation order and penalties imposed under Customs Act, 1962.

Seizure and Confiscation of Gold Bars and Currency:
The case involved the interception of three passengers at the airport who had arrived from Singapore and were found with undeclared gold bars and currency. The gold bars were concealed in shoes and pant pockets, leading to their seizure and subsequent proceedings for absolute confiscation. Penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 were also imposed on the appellants.

Mis-Declaration and Concealment Allegations:
The appellants argued that they had not mis-declared or concealed the gold bars, claiming they were bringing the gold for investment purposes based on information from a website. They contended that they had not crossed the Customs barrier, had sufficient funds to pay duty, and were misled by the website regarding the quantity of gold they could bring into India.

Legal Interpretation of Import Regulations:
The Tribunal considered the legal position that once gold is deemed importable, it becomes a prohibited item subject to absolute confiscation if not declared. The Commissioner's decision to confiscate the gold bars absolutely was supported by legal precedents, emphasizing the importance of accurate declarations and compliance with import regulations.

Challenge to Confiscation Order and Penalties:
The appellants disputed the Commissioner's conclusion regarding their Indian origin status and the confiscation of the gold bars. However, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation, citing the lack of evidence to support the appellants' claims and the violation of import regulations. The penalties imposed were reduced considering the absolute confiscation but upheld for non-compliance with Customs regulations.

The judgment highlighted the importance of accurate declaration of goods during importation, the consequences of non-compliance with Customs regulations, and the legal basis for absolute confiscation of prohibited items. The Tribunal's decision focused on upholding the confiscation of the gold bars while reducing the penalties imposed on the appellants.