2016 (7) TMI 547 - CGOVT - Customs

Confiscation of gold jewellery brought in commercial quantity - Benefit of Baggage Rules denied - confiscated under Section 111 (d),(l),(m) & (o) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of Foreign Trade (D&R) Act, 1992 - the applicant tried earnestly to produce all the purchase bills available with her to prove her contention that the jewellery seized by the Customs at Madurai Airport are old jewellery being used by her. - she admitted the mistake of not obtaining the export certificate from the Customs authorities in respect of impugned gold jewellery. Held that - In terms of Rule 6 a passenger returning to India after a stay of over one year and above shall be allowed clearance free of duty of jewellery in his bonafide baggage to the extent mentioned in Appendix D to the Rules. Jewellery is therefore not a permissible item of duty free Import as personal-baggage under section 79 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Baggage Rules issued thereunder particularly if the passenger has lived abroad for less than one year. The applicant has also contended that the goods seized by the Customs authorities did not only belong to her but also belonged to her relatives and free allowances were not given to them by the Customs authorities. In this regard, Government notes that in the present case the duty free allowance is not applicable to the applicant as per Baggage Rules, 1998. In the instant case, the applicant had not stayed abroad within the stipulated time period and hence free allowance for import of jewellery cannot be allowed to the applicant. - Revision application dismissed - Decided against the applicant.

Issues involved:
1. Confiscation of gold jewelry under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Applicability of Baggage Rules, 1998.
4. Consideration of evidence and purchase bills.
5. Ignorance of law as an excuse.

Issue-wise detailed analysis:

1. Confiscation of gold jewelry under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The applicant traveled from Sri Lanka to India and upon arrival at Madurai Airport, her gold jewelry was detained/seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The jewelry included 4 bangles, one stone-studded necklace, 2 chains, and 9 earrings, weighing a total of 190.46 grams. The goods were confiscated under Section 111(d), (l), (m), and (o) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, as the passenger failed to produce an export certificate or purchase invoice to support her claim that the jewelry was old and used.

2. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Airport) ordered the confiscation of the jewelry valued at ?4,85,111/- with an option to redeem the goods on payment of a redemption fine of ?1,000/- within 7 days. Additionally, a penalty of ?5,000/- was imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this order.

3. Applicability of Baggage Rules, 1998:
The applicant claimed that the jewelry was old and used, belonging to her and her family members, and carried for a wedding function. However, she admitted to not obtaining an export certificate. The Government noted that the applicant did not stay abroad for the stipulated time period as per Rule 3 and Rule 6 of the Baggage Rules, 1998, which allows duty-free import of jewelry only under specific conditions. Therefore, the duty-free allowance was not applicable.

4. Consideration of evidence and purchase bills:
The applicant provided photocopies of purchase bills, but these did not tally with the quantity of seized goods. For instance, the weight of 4 bangles was shown as 48 grams in the detention receipt, whereas the tax invoice showed 41.940 grams. Additionally, while 2 chains were seized, the applicant produced a bill for only one chain. These discrepancies led the Government to conclude that the applicant failed to establish her claim that the jewelry was old and used.

5. Ignorance of law as an excuse:
The applicant argued that her failure to inform Customs at the time of departure was due to ignorance of the law. However, the Government reiterated that ignorance of law is not a valid excuse for non-compliance. Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962, mandates the declaration of baggage contents to the Customs officer, and the applicant's jewelry was in commercial quantity, not constituting bonafide baggage.

Conclusion:
The Government found no reason to interfere with the Order-in-Appeal, upholding it as just and legal. The revision application was rejected, affirming the confiscation and penalties imposed. The applicant's contentions regarding the ownership, use, and ignorance of law were not accepted due to lack of corroborative evidence and legal provisions under the Customs Act and Baggage Rules.

← Previous Next →