2019 (4) TMI 447 - AT - Customs

Smuggling - 5 gold bangles of 99.9 purity and weighing 311 grams - non-declared goods - baggage rules - It is the case of the Revenue that the appellant was, first of all, not entitled to carry the gold because they had not stayed in abroad for more than six months to become eligible passenger to bring gold as required under the Foreign Trade Policy applicable during the relevant period. Further, they have not declared the gold bangles before the Customs - confiscation. Held that - The only point of merit which the appellant is claiming is that she had taken five kadas out of India while leaving. If that be so, it should have been recorded in the passport or the appellant could have declared somewhere before the Customs while leaving or produce the same to substantiate their claim that these bangles were actually taken by her out of India while leaving and have been brought back in the genuine personal baggage. The records would show that when the bangles seized by the Customs Officers from the passenger, she claimed that the same were given by her daughter while she was in Chicago and carried out them while leaving from abroad. Therefore, this argument of the appellant holds no water. s per the records, got the bangles while she arrived at Hyderabad Airport and had not declared the same to the Officers under Section 77. It is the responsibility of the passenger to make declaration which she failed. The fact that there were some blank forms signed by her which are lying in the coat pocket of her husband does not change this situation - They cannot even claim ignorance because they had blank baggage declaration forms which they signed and kept in pocket until caught. As far as the request of the appellant to initiate disciplinary action or direct the Department to take disciplinary action against the Officers who have investigated the matter or passed the adjudication orders or the Orders in Appeal against them are concerned, this is downright absurd. No Officer can be punished for catching the appellant smuggling the goods, investigating the matter, issuing show cause notice, adjudicating the matter or passing Order-in-Appeal - They have discharged their responsibilities in catching the appellant while smuggling gold and completing the investigation and legal proceedings. There is no ground to interfere with the confiscation of the goods in question under section 111 or penalties under section 112(a)(ii) and 114AA as ordered by the first appellate authority in the impugned order - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Smuggling of gold bangles without declaration before Customs
- Confiscation of gold bangles under Section 111(l) of the Customs Act, 1962
- Imposition of penalties under sections 112(a)(ii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962
- Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal for confiscation and penalties
- Request for refund and disciplinary action against authorities

Smuggling of Gold Bangles without Declaration:
The case involved the interception of two individuals carrying 5 gold bangles at Hyderabad International Airport, which were not declared before Customs. The individuals failed to meet the eligibility criteria for bringing gold into India under the Foreign Trade Policy. The Customs officers confiscated the gold bangles under Section 111(l) of the Customs Act, 1962, as the passengers did not declare the goods.

Confiscation and Penalties Imposed:
The original authority confiscated the gold bangles and imposed a fine and penalties under sections 112(a)(ii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The first appellate authority partly modified the order, reducing one penalty but upholding the rest. The appellant appealed against this decision, seeking a refund and disciplinary action against the authorities involved.

Appeal and Grounds Raised:
The appellant argued that the bangles were taken out of India and were not smuggled into the country. They claimed that the bangles were obtained by the appellant's daughter in Chicago and were carried out of India by the appellant. The appellant also raised concerns about different officers passing the Orders-in-Appeal and cited Section 79 of the Customs Act, 1962, which exempts bonafide baggage from duty.

Judgment Analysis:
The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's argument regarding different officers passing the Orders-in-Appeal, stating that transfers are common, and new officers take over cases. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant failed to provide evidence of taking the bangles out of India while leaving or making a declaration before Customs. The Tribunal concluded that the bangles were brought into India without declaration, constituting smuggled goods.

Disciplinary Action and Decision:
The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's request for disciplinary action against the investigating officers and authorities involved in the adjudication process. It deemed the request absurd, stating that the officers had fulfilled their duties in catching the smuggling attempt. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the goods and the imposed penalties, rejecting the appeal and affirming the impugned order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, finding it balanced and reasonable, and rejected the appeal against the confiscation of the gold bangles and the penalties imposed under the Customs Act, 1962.