2016 (7) TMI 146 - CGOVT - Customs

Import of gold bracelets concealed - crossing through green channel without declaring the goods - when the baggage was screened and the officers found some suspicious image indicating the presence of gold. - applicant passenger has mainly contended that he reported at the Red channel to prove his bonafideness that he had got dutiable goods and that true declaration was made before the Customs officers - Held that - it is a fact on record that the applicant had imported the said gold bracelets by way of concealment in the chocolate box which was kept inside his hand bag with motive to smuggle the same into India with culpable mind to evade customs duty by not declaration the same as required under Section 77 of the Customs Act 1962. Also that the seized Customs declaration card of the passenger did not bear any description of impugned goods and its value thereon. The plea of the applicant that he reported at the Red Channel and declared the impugned goods is not tenable and is a after thought to escape from the penal action at the hands of Customs authorities for his acts of omission and commission committed by him. Government further finds that the plea of the applicant for extending benefit of TR to the applicant cannot be acceded to in view of the fact that he has not lived abroad for the required period and for the aforesaid offense committed by the applicant. As per Section 79(2) read with the Baggage Rules the benefit can only be extended to bonafide baggage and truly declared to Customs. - Decided against the applicant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 76/2013 dated 20.08.2013.
2. Concealment of gold bracelets by the passenger.
3. Customs duty evasion and penalty imposition.
4. Request for setting aside redemption fine and personal penalty.
5. Bonafide declaration and TR concession plea.

Issue 1: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal
The revision application was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 76/2013 dated 20.08.2013 issued by the Commissioner of Customs, (Appeals) Trichy, concerning Order-in-Original No. 117/2013 dated 18.05.2013 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, (Airport) Trichy. The applicant, Shri Veeriaya, contested the decision and sought redressal from the Central Government under Section 129 DD of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 2: Concealment of Gold Bracelets
The case involved the interception of the passenger, Shri Veeriaya, at the Trichy airport upon his arrival from Singapore. Customs officers discovered 7 gold bracelets concealed among chocolates in his baggage, weighing 106.00 grams and valued at Rs. 2,92,560. The passenger admitted to concealing the gold jewelry to evade customs duty, leading to the confiscation of the goods under relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 3: Customs Duty Evasion and Penalty
The adjudicating authority imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 87,768 under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, along with appropriate duty, and a penalty of Rs. 58,512 under Section 112 of the Act. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld this decision, prompting the applicant to challenge the redemption fine and penalty through the revision application before the Central Government.

Issue 4: Request for Setting Aside Redemption Fine and Penalty
In the revision application, the applicant raised several grounds challenging the orders of the respondents, including the weight of evidence, true declaration, and the purpose of bringing the goods. The applicant sought to set aside the redemption fine and personal penalty, emphasizing his lack of bad antecedents and the intention to bring the goods as gifts for relatives and friends.

Issue 5: Bonafide Declaration and TR Concession Plea
The applicant contended that he reported at the Red channel to demonstrate the bonafideness of carrying dutiable goods and made a true declaration to the Customs officers. However, the Government observed that the concealment of gold bracelets indicated a deliberate attempt to evade customs duty, undermining the applicant's claims of bonafide intentions and eligibility for TR concession.

In conclusion, the Central Government reviewed the case records, submissions, and previous orders, finding no merit in the revision application. The Government upheld the impugned Order-in-Appeal, rejecting the applicant's plea and affirming the redemption fine and penalty imposed. The revision application was deemed devoid of merit, and the decision was finalized accordingly.