2017 (5) TMI 1280 - AT - Customs

Penalty - confiscation - permission to re-export goods - import of large consignment of memory cards for mobile devices - failure to make the formal declaration of the contents of the baggage - Held that - Section 80 of the CA enables the proper officer to permit re-export of goods imported in the baggage of a passenger even if such items are dutiable or the import of which is prohibited, subject to the condition that a true declaration of the same has been made u/s 77 - When we look at the quantum of memory cards imported by the passenger in his baggage, it is evident that the quantity is beyond what can be considered as a bona fide baggage. It is clearly in commercial quantities. However the fact remains that at the first available opportunity i.e. the passenger has declared the contents of the baggage to the intelligence officers. Even though he has not made a correct declaration of the value of the imported goods by leaving the relevant column of the disembarkation card blank, the statement made to the intelligence officers may be considered as the declaration made by him in terms of Section 77 of the CA, 1962. The conditions of Section 77 and 80 have been satisfied. Hence, the appellant may be permitted to re-export the goods - the penalty imposed u/s 112(a) is to be set aside. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Customs Act, 1962 - Confiscation of goods, Misdeclaration, True declaration, Permission for re-export, Penalty under Section 112(a)

Analysis:
The appeal challenged an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Calicut, regarding the confiscation of memory storage devices found in a passenger's baggage. The goods were seized on suspicion of being smuggled into India in commercial quantity, leading to a show-cause notice and subsequent adjudication. The adjudicating authority ordered confiscation under Customs Act provisions and imposed fines and penalties, prompting the appeal.

The appellant argued that the passenger's immediate declaration to Customs officers upon questioning should be considered a valid declaration under Section 77 of the Customs Act. It was contended that the passenger was not given the opportunity to declare the goods formally at the red channel, but the initial declaration should suffice. The appellant also highlighted that the goods, although in commercial quantity, were freely importable under OGL, and a true declaration was made promptly.

The appellant further pleaded for permission to re-export the goods, which was denied during adjudication. The appellant expressed disinterest in redeeming the goods due to their age and requested the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) to be set aside. The appellant cited relevant case laws to support the arguments presented, emphasizing the importance of true declaration for re-export permissions.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the quantity of goods exceeded personal baggage limits but acknowledged the immediate declaration made by the passenger to Customs officers. The Tribunal found that the conditions of Sections 77 and 80 of the Customs Act were met, allowing for re-export of the goods. Consequently, the penalty under Section 112(a) was set aside, and the appellant was permitted to re-export the goods. As the appellant did not challenge other aspects of the impugned order, no further orders were issued, and the appeal was partially allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the validity of the passenger's declaration, the permissibility of re-export under relevant Customs Act sections, and the setting aside of the imposed penalty under Section 112(a). The judgment emphasized the importance of timely and true declarations in customs matters, ensuring compliance with legal provisions for re-export permissions in cases of confiscated goods.