2022 (4) TMI 271 - HC - Customs

Seeking release of seized goods - gold/ornaments - case of the petitioners is that they were employed in Singapore for more than two years and therefore they were not required to pay customs duty on their personal belongings - HELD THAT - Though the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these petitioners are not connected and had travelled independently, there is too much of coincidence as all them had carried gold bangles and the reason given is marriage in their family, the weight of the gold bangles carried by each of the petitioners and the reasons given in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions are almost identical except in the case of the petitioner. Prima facie it appears that they were working in tandens. All the four petitioners have purchased gold bangles weighing identically. The reasons given are also almost similar. However, it is noticed that the consistent view of this Court in all the writ petitions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners indicate that gold ornaments can be released subject to the payment 50% of the customs duty payable. It is not, however, clear whether the petitioners have returned back to Singapore in connection with the avocation in Singapore. This would require a detailed adjudication by the authorities under the Customs Act - these writ petitions are disposed off by directing the respective petitioners to deposit 50% of the Customs duty payable as has been ordered in all these cases. These writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respective petitioners to pay 50% of customs duty in cash and furnish 50% security in the form of bank guarantee for the balance 50% of the customs duty. On production of such bank guarantee and payment of duty, the seized gold bangles are directed to be released forthwith.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to seizure memo/Detention Receipts dated 24.12.2021 regarding gold bangles purchased by petitioners during visit to India for family wedding. Claim of exemption from customs duty due to employment in Singapore. Comparison to past court orders for similar cases. Allegation of intention to evade customs duty by respondents. Identical circumstances and reasons among petitioners' declarations.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged the seizure memo/Detention Receipts issued by respondents regarding gold bangles purchased during their visit to India for a family wedding. They claimed exemption from customs duty due to their employment in Singapore for over two years. Citing past court orders, petitioners argued for the release of seized gold on payment of 50% of customs duty, as allowed in similar cases. The learned counsel highlighted consistent court decisions supporting the release of seized gold ornaments related to emigration.

The respondents opposed the prayer, alleging that petitioners intended to evade customs duty by purchasing gold for resale. They mentioned ongoing adjudication proceedings and criticized the petitioners for filing writ petitions prematurely. The court considered arguments from both sides.

The court noted similarities among petitioners' circumstances, such as carrying gold bangles for family weddings and declarations upon arrival at the airport. Despite minor differences in declarations, a pattern emerged suggesting coordinated actions. The court acknowledged past rulings allowing the release of gold ornaments on payment of 50% of customs duty. However, the need for detailed adjudication under the Customs Act regarding petitioners' return to Singapore was highlighted.

Consequently, the court directed petitioners to pay 50% of customs duty in cash and provide a bank guarantee for the remaining 50%. Upon fulfilling these requirements, the seized gold bangles would be released. The respondents were instructed to conclude adjudication proceedings within six months, with petitioners required to cooperate. No costs were imposed, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.