2016 (11) TMI 559 - HC - Customs

Smuggling of gold - gold jewellery confiscated on the ground that it was not declared - the petitioner in his voluntary statement stated that he was carrying the Gold jewellery given by some other person in Singapore to deliver the same to his family without declaring to the customs - whether confiscation justified? - jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - this Court will consider as to whether the impugned order suffers from any perversity or non-application of mind - Held that - the first respondent has given independent reasons as to why the revision petition does not merit consideration. The petitioner cannot take umbrage to N/N.31/2003 dated 1.3.2003 as he does not fall within the definition of eligible passenger . That apart, the authorities have concurrently recorded that the petitioner did not file true and correct declaration and attempted to smuggle the Gold Jewellery. That apart, while ordering absolute confiscation, the first respondent has referred to a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Union of India vs. Mohammed Aijaj Ahmed, 2009 (7) TMI 308 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . In the light of the independent reasonings given by the first respondent, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the factual reasons recorded and consequently, the petitioner has not made out any case for interference - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by revisional authority under Customs Act, 1962 for confiscation of undeclared gold jewelry and imposition of penalty.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the revisional authority under section 129 DD of the Customs Act, 1962, against the confiscation of gold jewelry carried by him. The third respondent had ordered confiscation of the gold jewelry under section 111 (d), (l), and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, along with imposing a penalty of &8377; 32,000 under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner, in his voluntary statement, admitted to carrying the gold jewelry without declaring it to the customs, leading to the confiscation order.

The petitioner appealed to the appellate authority, which upheld the confiscation order. The appellate authority found that the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions as per Notification No.31/2003, which defines an "eligible passenger." The petitioner was accused of attempting to smuggle the gold jewelry by not making a true declaration and passing through the Green Channel to evade customs duty. The second respondent confirmed the confiscation order, prompting the petitioner to file a revision petition before the first respondent.

The revisional authority rejected the revision petition after considering the petitioner's contentions. The petitioner argued that the gold jewelry was not a prohibited item and sought permission for re-export. However, the first respondent, in the impugned order, provided independent reasons for upholding the confiscation. The first respondent referred to a decision of the Bombay High Court, upheld by the Supreme Court, to support the confiscation order. The High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, declined to interfere with the factual findings and reasons given by the first respondent, dismissing the writ petition.

In conclusion, the High Court found no grounds for interference with the order passed by the revisional authority regarding the confiscation of the undeclared gold jewelry and imposition of the penalty. The petitioner's arguments were considered but ultimately not deemed sufficient to overturn the decision. The writ petition was dismissed without costs.