2020 (6) TMI 396 - AT - Customs

Smuggling - Import of Gold Jewellery - bona fide baggage - Baggage Rules - case of Revenue is that the jurisdiction in a dispute relating to baggage vested with the Government of India, in its revisionary authority, and was not under the appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal - Confiscation - penalty - HELD THAT - On perusal of the Rules pertaining to importation of jewellery, as baggage by an arriving passenger, it is seen that the quantity in the present dispute is far in excess of that allowed free of duty on import into India. Therefore, the passenger has failed to comply with declaration requirements and confiscation under section 111(1) of Customs Act, 1962 is not misplaced. Confiscation - HELD THAT - The appellant is a citizen of Malaysia and intends to return to her country of domicile. She was unable to carry into, and wear the gold jewellery in, India and it is her request that she should be allowed to carry it back with her on the return trip to Malaysia. In view of these circumstances and this plea, while holding that the goods are liable for confiscation under section 111(1) of Customs Act, 1962, we desist from endorsing the conformation - Confiscation set aside. Imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - As the goods were liable for confiscation, the liability to penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not unwarranted - the imposition of penalty of would suffice to meet the ends of justice. Appeal disposed off.

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in a dispute relating to 'baggage'
2. Confiscation of gold jewellery under Customs Act, 1962
3. Allegations of concealment and ineligibility of foreign nationals to import gold jewellery
4. Applicability of section 125 of Customs Act, 1962
5. Prohibition of import of gold jewellery
6. Compliance with declaration requirements for imported jewellery
7. Confiscation and penalty under sections 111(1) and 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962

Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in a dispute relating to 'baggage':
The Tribunal addressed the objection raised regarding the jurisdiction in a dispute relating to 'baggage.' It clarified that 'baggage' falls within the purview of the original and appellate authorities designated under the Customs Act, 1962, and not solely under the revisionary authority of the Government of India. The Tribunal emphasized that 'bona fide' baggage enjoys certain privileges and treatments distinct from commercial import and export goods. Additionally, it noted that the matter was brought before the Tribunal following a directive from the High Court, and objections to jurisdiction raised at this stage were deemed untimely.

Confiscation of gold jewellery under Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant's gold jewellery was confiscated under sections 111(d) and 111(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, with a penalty imposed under section 112(a). The Tribunal observed that absolute confiscation without prior notice was contentious. The appellant disputed the allegations of concealment and ineligibility to import gold jewellery, citing errors in facts and procedures. The Tribunal analyzed the appellant's contentions, including challenges to the reliability of evidence and misapplication of section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Allegations of concealment and ineligibility of foreign nationals to import gold jewellery:
The appellant contested the allegations of concealment and ineligibility of foreign nationals to import gold jewellery. The appellant argued against the charges of deliberate concealment and ineligibility, highlighting procedural irregularities and lack of incriminating statements. The Tribunal considered the appellant's arguments, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence to support allegations of concealment and deliberate intent to smuggle gold.

Applicability of section 125 of Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant challenged the application of section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, contending that its misdirection in the proceedings impacted the outcome. The Tribunal reviewed the provisions of section 125 and its relevance to the case, ultimately assessing its correct application in the context of prohibited goods and redemption options post-confiscation.

Prohibition of import of gold jewellery:
The Tribunal examined the prohibition of the import of gold jewellery under relevant laws and regulations. It found no evidence to establish that the appellant's imported jewellery fell under prohibited goods categories. The Tribunal concluded that the confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, based on the premise of prohibited goods, was not substantiated.

Compliance with declaration requirements for imported jewellery:
The Tribunal assessed the appellant's compliance with declaration requirements for imported jewellery. It noted that the quantity of jewellery exceeded duty-free limits, indicating a failure to adhere to declaration rules. Consequently, the confiscation under section 111(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, was deemed appropriate in light of non-compliance with importation regulations.

Confiscation and penalty under sections 111(1) and 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962:
While upholding the confiscation of the gold jewellery under section 111(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Tribunal set aside the same, considering the appellant's circumstances and intentions. The Tribunal imposed a penalty under section 112(a) but directed the appellant to retrieve and export the jewellery out of the country upon compliance with the penalty. The appeal was disposed of based on the findings and considerations outlined in the judgment.

← Previous Next →