2015 (12) TMI 535 - HC - Customs

Confiscation under Section 111(d) and (l) - attempt to smuggle the goods (gold jewellery) in India in the baggages - Provisional release of seized goods - Held that - DRI, Chennai Zonal Unit, on specific intelligence, had intercepted the petitioner at Anna International Airport, chennai, and on enquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner was coming from Sharjah via Trivandrum. On scrutiny of the Customs Declaration form by DRI, it was found that against the column, total value of dutiable goods carried by him, it was mentioned as Nil . On enquiry by DRI as to whether he is in possession of any dutiable goods or foreign origin gold, he replied in the negative. - Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent that since the passenger had attempted to smuggle the goods into India by concealing the same in his person as well as in his hand baggage and checked-in-baggage, without declaring the same to the Customs, in order to evade the payment of Customs duty, the afore stated goods are liable for confiscation under the provisions of Section 111(d) and 111 (l) of the Customs Act, 1962 and hence, it cannot be released provisionally under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner had attempted to smuggle the goods into India only with an intention to evade payment of Customs duty and in the absence of any contention refuting the same from the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the goods confiscated under Section 111(d) and 111(l) of the Customs Act, 1962, cannot be released provisionally as sought for by the petitioner. - when the goods were confiscated under Section 111(d) and 111(l) of the Customs Act, 1962, the question of provisional release under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not arise. Therefore, this Court is of view that only after the completion of adjudication process, the adjudicating authority would decide whether the goods confiscated under Section 111(d) and 111(l) of the Customs Act, 1962, could be released or not. - Decided against the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of imported goods under mahazar dated 7.9.2014
2. Allegations of smuggling against the petitioner
3. Petitioner's request for release of seized goods
4. Provisional release under Customs Act, 1962
5. Confiscation of goods under Sections 111(d) and 111(l) of the Act

Analysis:

Issue 1: Seizure of imported goods under mahazar dated 7.9.2014
The petitioner, a native of Nasik, Maharashtra, was carrying various goods including gold chains, saffron, cigarettes, perfumes, and mobile phones upon his return from Sharjah. The goods were seized at Chennai Airport on the grounds of smuggling as per the mahazar dated 7.9.2014. The petitioner made representations and sought release of the seized goods.

Issue 2: Allegations of smuggling against the petitioner
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the petitioner concealed dutiable goods, including saffron, in his baggage without declaring them to customs to evade duty payment. The DRI issued a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, proposing confiscation and penalty. The petitioner refuted the allegations through representations and replies.

Issue 3: Petitioner's request for release of seized goods
The petitioner argued that the seized goods were not prohibited or restricted and could be brought as part of baggage. He invoked Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, for provisional release pending adjudication. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court decision to support his claim for release on payment of appropriate duty.

Issue 4: Provisional release under Customs Act, 1962
The respondent contended that the seized goods were liable for confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(l) of the Act as the petitioner attempted to smuggle them to evade customs duty. The respondent opposed provisional release under Section 110, stating that only baggage rules applied in this case.

Issue 5: Confiscation of goods under Sections 111(d) and 111(l) of the Act
The court held that the goods were confiscated under Sections 111(d) and 111(l) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the petitioner's attempt to evade customs duty. As a result, the court dismissed the petition, directing the adjudicating authority to complete the adjudication process within eight weeks after affording the petitioner a personal hearing.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition but directed the adjudicating authority to complete the adjudication process promptly.