2017 (12) TMI 725 - AT - Customs

Smuggling - gold - non-declaration of goods before the customs authorities - Baggage Rules - section 80 of CA, 1962 - Held that - any passenger entering into India is empowered to make a declaration of his baggage before entering into India as provided under Section 77 of Customs Act, 1962. Further if it is found that the goods accompanying him which are also called as baggage, import of which is prohibited and in respect of which true declaration has been made under Section 77 the proper officer may at the request of the passenger detain such articles for the purpose of being returned to him on his leaving India under Section 80 of Customs Act, 1962. The appellant appears to have proposed such option before the officers of Land Customs Station, Sonauli. However, the said option was not exercised and officers seized the goods and detained the passenger - the appellant was entitled for the benefit of provision of Section 80 of CA, 1962 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with Section 102(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 during search.
2. Denial of opportunity for cross-examination and access to CCTV footage.
3. Declaration of goods and the right to re-export under Section 80 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Compliance with Section 102(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 during search:
The appellant argued that the provision requiring two or more witnesses during a search was not followed, as evident from the Panchnama. This non-compliance was a key contention in the appeal, suggesting a procedural flaw in the search process.

Denial of opportunity for cross-examination and access to CCTV footage:
The appellant disputed the facts stated in the show cause notice and requested cross-examination of witnesses and access to CCTV footage. The appellant claimed that the Original Authority denied these opportunities, indicating a violation of the appellant's right to present a defense and establish the truth of the events leading to the confiscation.

Declaration of goods and the right to re-export under Section 80 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant maintained that he had declared the goods with the intention of paying customs duty, thus not rendering them liable for confiscation. The appellant argued that if the goods were not allowed for import, they should have been permitted for re-export under Section 80 of the Customs Act, 1962. This issue raised questions about the proper application of customs regulations and the appellant's rights in such circumstances.

The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and records, found that any passenger entering India could declare their baggage under Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962. If goods were prohibited but declared, the passenger could request detention for re-export under Section 80. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had proposed this option at the Land Customs Station but was not allowed to exercise it, leading to the seizure of goods. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Section 80 and set aside the order, allowing the appellant to exercise the re-export option at the Land Customs Station. The Tribunal directed the return of confiscated goods to the appellant for carrying out of India. This decision emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and the rights of individuals under customs laws.