2018 (1) TMI 1459 - CGOVT - Customs

Re-export of confiscated gold on payment of reasonable redemption fine and penalty - no concealment of the goods in question - mere failure to declare the goods - The revision application has been filed mainly on the ground that he had requested the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow re-export of the confiscated gold articles on payment of reasonable fine and penalty. But the Commissioner (Appeals) has completely ignored their above request and has instead allowed redemption of confiscated goods on payment of Customs duty heavy redemption fine of 4, 80, 000/- and harsh fine of 2, 50, 000/-. Held that - The Government finds that the gold articles namely one gold kara one gold chain and one gold cut piece total weighing 454 gms are apparently not of commercial quantity for a person earning such high salary. It has not been alleged even in the above two orders. The purchase of these articles by the applicant from his own income source is also not dispute in the above two orders. Above all it is not established in this case that the applicant had concealed these three articles in his baggage or in his body parts - the Government finds that the element of concealment of gold is not established and the only fault on the part of the applicant has been that he did not declare the importation of the above three articles to the Customs Officers before his departure from the arrival hall. Therefore the above three articles of the value of 12, 47, 535/- are certainly liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act and the applicant has also not disputed this aspect. Considering the fact that the applicant is working in Dubai as a Sales Manager and the Commissioner (Appeals) has not rejected the applicant s request for re-export of the goods in his Order the Government allows the re-export of goods on payment of redemption fine of 3, 00, 000/- Further it also agrees that penalty of 2, 50, 000/- imposed on the applicant is also on the higher side and considering the above facts the same is reduced to 1, 00, 000/-. The fine and penalty of the above amount will not only eliminate any profit of margin if any but will also have a positive effect on the applicant to ensure strict compliance of law in future. Thus the applicant can re-export all the confiscated gold articles on payment of Redemption Fine of 3, 00, 000/- and Personal Penalty of 1, 00, 000/-. Revision application allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Redemption of confiscated gold articles, re-export request denial, excessive redemption fine and penalty imposition, applicant's employment in Dubai affecting redemption, failure to declare imported articles, concealment allegations, legal precedents for re-export requests, excessive penalty reduction.

Analysis:
The case involves a revision application filed against an order allowing redemption of confiscated gold articles on payment of a heavy fine and penalty. The applicant requested re-export of the goods instead, citing his inability to redeem them due to his long-term employment in Dubai. The applicant argued that the confiscated gold items were for personal use, not commercial, and were not concealed. The government found the gold articles not of commercial quantity for someone with the applicant's high salary, and the element of concealment was not established. The applicant relied on legal precedents supporting re-export requests. The government allowed re-export on payment of reduced redemption fine and penalty, considering the applicant's circumstances and the excessive penalty imposed initially.

The revision application highlighted the Commissioner (Appeals) ignoring the applicant's repeated requests for re-export and imposing heavy redemption fine and penalty. The applicant's employment in Dubai and inability to redeem the goods in India were crucial factors in the re-export request. The government acknowledged the applicant's arguments regarding the personal nature of the gold articles and lack of concealment. Legal precedents cited by the applicant supported the re-export request, leading to the government allowing re-export on reduced financial terms to ensure compliance and eliminate excess penalties.

The case delved into the specifics of the applicant's situation, emphasizing his employment in Dubai and the personal nature of the confiscated gold articles. The government's decision to allow re-export was influenced by the applicant's inability to redeem the goods in India, the lack of concealment, and the non-commercial nature of the gold items. Legal precedents played a significant role in supporting the re-export request, leading to a reduction in the redemption fine and penalty imposed initially. The government's decision aimed to balance compliance with the law while considering the applicant's circumstances and ensuring a fair outcome in the case.