2018 (2) TMI 752 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - Gold - petitioners case is that while it is true that they were carrying gold, this was in no sense contraband and there was no attempt to smuggle gold - denial of opportunity to declare their goods because they were purportedly arrested at the aerobridge ramp at the exit of the aircraft even before they arrived at the immigration counters and before they could approach the custom desks to declare their goods - Held that - it is always open to the Adjudicating Authority, after viewing the additional material, to reiterate his previous conclusion if he finds that there is no material on DVDs to support the petitioners case, or to hold that in any view of the matter, the petitioners submissions even after viewing the sufficient material cannot be sustained - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging Order-in-Original dated 15th March, 2017 issued by the Additional Commissioner of Customs regarding the arrest of petitioners for carrying gold upon arrival at Dabolim airport.

Analysis:
The petition challenges the Order-in-Original dated 15th March, 2017, where the petitioners were arrested upon arrival at Dabolim airport for carrying gold. The petitioners argue that the gold was not contraband, and they were not attempting to smuggle it. They claim they were denied the chance to declare the goods as they were arrested before reaching the immigration counters or custom desks.

The petitioners' passports were seized at the aerobridge, and immigration stamps were placed without their presence. They were given customs declaration forms, adding to the confusion. The petitioners sought CCTV footage to support their claims, emphasizing that once the footage is reviewed, the issue of smuggling would be clarified.

An order was issued to obtain CCTV footage from the CJM Margao, which was received by the Court. The impugned order rejected the request for CCTV documents as they were not relied upon by the Revenue. The Court ruled that the accused can produce their own evidence, even if not relied upon by the Revenue, to mount their defense. The impugned order was set aside on this ground.

The Court emphasized that the petitioners should have the fullest opportunity to use all available material. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to reconsider the matter in light of the DVDs, which were sealed. Copies of the DVDs were to be made, authenticated, and transmitted to the Adjudicating Authority for review in the presence of the petitioners and their Advocates.

It was clarified that the Adjudicating Authority could maintain the previous conclusion if the DVDs did not support the petitioners' case or decide that the submissions could not be sustained even after viewing the material. All contentions were left open, and the rule was made absolute with no order as to costs. The original DVDs were to be retained on the record of the Court.