2016 (4) TMI 181 - HC - Customs

Seeking release and return of 1 No of Gold Bar and 3 Nos of Gold Cut Pieces - Goods possessed by the respondents and the statement taken from petitioner was not his voluntary statement and his signature was taken under threat and coercion - Held that - it is clear that the entire Mahazar has been typed in English, however, the petitioner had signed in Tamil. Whether the contents of the Mahazar was explained to the petitioner was not mentioned in the statement. Therefore, based on the Mahazar, it cannot be stated that the petitioner had admitted, as stated by the respondents, in their Counter. When the petitioner had signed the Mahazar in Tamil, the respondents should have explained the contents of the Mahazar to the petitioner in Tamil and also recorded the same in the Mahazar. Therefore, based on the statement, recorded by the respondents alone, it cannot be said that the petitioner had admitted that he was smuggling the gold. Therefore, by following the decision of Division Bench, the petitioner can get the return of gold, on deposit of 50% of the duty for the value of Gold and on such deposit, being made, the second respondent can be directed to release the gold. - Decided in favour of petitioner

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking release of gold bar and cut pieces; Allegations of illegal detention by customs authorities; Interpretation of Customs Act provisions; Previous court judgments on similar cases.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the release of 1 gold bar and 3 gold cut pieces, weighing 446 grams, detained by customs authorities upon his arrival at Chennai Airport as a domestic passenger. The petitioner claimed he had informed the customs officers about the gold but was coerced into signing a statement under threat. The petitioner argued that as a domestic passenger, the seizure of gold was illegal. However, the respondents contended that the petitioner attempted to smuggle the gold without declaration or valid permits, as per his statement admitting to receiving the gold from an unknown person for smuggling out of Chennai Airport. The respondents also highlighted the lack of valid documents for the gold in the petitioner's possession.

The legal arguments revolved around the interpretation of Customs Act provisions, particularly Sec.2(23) defining import and Sec.111 on goods liable to confiscation. The petitioner's counsel cited Sec.110-A allowing for the release of seized goods pending adjudication, emphasizing the petitioner's status as a domestic passenger not subject to the same regulations as international passengers. The respondents, through their standing counsel, reiterated the petitioner's admission in the recorded statement regarding smuggling activities.

The court referenced a previous case where a similar order for the release of gold jewelry was granted upon payment of customs duty and redemption fine. The Division Bench had modified the order to require a 50% duty deposit for release. The court noted that the Division Bench's decision was challenged in higher courts but upheld, establishing a precedent applicable to the present case. Consequently, the court directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the duty for the gold's value for its release and instructed the second respondent to complete adjudication proceedings within four weeks of the gold's release.

In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to deposit the required duty for the gold's release and cooperate in the pending adjudication. The court emphasized that the order did not prevent the authorities from issuing a show cause notice and deciding the matter, ensuring compliance with legal procedures.