9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 1196 - HC - CustomsSeeking release/return of the detained goods - Gold Bangles, weighing 150 grams - prohibited goods or restricted goods - passenger staying abroad for more than six months - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the petitioner is working in Singapore for the past 3 years and he is having a valid Work Permit Card issued by the Republic of Singapore and is also having a Bank Account in Singapore. As could be seen from the Detention/Seizure of Passengers Baggage Receipt issued by the third respondent, the petitioner had left India on 02.10.2018 to Singapore and returned to India again after 3 years i.e. , on 01.05.2022, which shows that for the past 3 years, the petitioner was working in Singapore and he is also having a valid Work Permit Card issued by the Republic of Singapore. The petitioner came to India to attend the family marriage and for that purpose, he was carrying three gold bangles in his bag and not concealed the same in his baggage or on his body. Further, there is no declaration slip obtained from the petitioner and there is no specific rebuttal on the petitioner's assertion that no declaration slip is obtained from him. In fact, he was orally declared by the Customs Officers that he is carrying 3 gold bangles, totally weighing 150 grams for his family marriage, is not specifically denied. Further, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has returned from Singapore after 3 years. A statement has been recorded from him on 01.05.2022, which has been immediately refuted on 02.05.2022, as could be seen from the records. The petitioner had consistently taken a stand that he has been working in Singapore and got work permit and is also having a Bank Account for crediting his salary. With his earnings, he had purchased three gold bangles. He had also produced the invoice of the gold bangles to the authorities. Further, there is no concealment of gold in a baggage or body, which prima facie , shows that there is no smuggling and at the most, it is seized for non-declaration. Added to it, adjudication proceedings is yet to be completed. The Delhi High Court in Vaibhav Sampat More vs. National Investigation Agency, Through its Chief Investigation Officer 2022 (6) TMI 220 - DELHI HIGH COURT held that import of gold is not prohibited, but restricted subject to prescribed quantity on payment of duty. Thus, import of gold is not prohibited, but restricted subject to prescribed quantity on payment of duty. Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, gives rights to the owner or from whom the goods have been seized to redeem such goods on payment of fine. Further, this Court consistently held that goods can be handed over on executing 50% of the Bank guarantee on the duty amount. In view of the same, this Court directs the petitioner to execute 50% of the Bank guarantee in lieu of customs duty and on execution of the Bank guarantee, the respondents are directed to hand over the gold bangles to the petitioner, within two weeks from thereon. It is for the respondents to proceed with the adjudication proceedings to save the revenue to the Nation. The adjudication proceedings shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Detention Receipt issued by customs authorities. 2. Eligibility of the petitioner to claim concessional duty for the detained gold bangles. 3. Compliance with customs declaration requirements. 4. Applicability of Section 110-A and Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 for provisional release of seized goods. 5. Legal precedents regarding the release of seized gold on payment of duty. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Detention Receipt: The petitioner challenged the Detention Receipt issued by the customs authorities at Trichy International Airport, arguing that the gold bangles were purchased in Singapore with his hard-earned money and were declared upon arrival. The customs officers, however, detained the gold, suspecting the petitioner to be a carrier for someone else. The court noted that the petitioner had declared the gold bangles and had provided an invoice, but the customs officers detained the gold without providing a proper reason or issuing a show cause notice. 2. Eligibility for Concessional Duty: The petitioner claimed eligibility for concessional duty as he had been residing abroad for more than six months. The court recognized that the petitioner had been working in Singapore for 3.5 years and had a valid work permit and bank account in Singapore. The court found no evidence of concealment or smuggling, as the gold bangles were openly declared. 3. Compliance with Customs Declaration Requirements: The customs authorities argued that the petitioner did not provide a declaration slip and lacked foreign currency to pay the duty, suggesting he was a carrier. The court found no specific rebuttal to the petitioner's assertion that no declaration slip was obtained from him and noted that the gold was not concealed, indicating no intent to smuggle. 4. Applicability of Section 110-A and Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962: The petitioner sought the release of the gold under Section 110-A, which allows the provisional release of seized goods pending adjudication. The court held that the petitioner, being the owner of the gold, was entitled to its release on providing a bank guarantee for 50% of the duty. Section 125, which allows for the redemption of seized goods on payment of a fine, was also applicable, as the gold was not a prohibited item but a restricted one. 5. Legal Precedents: The petitioner cited several judgments, including the Supreme Court ruling in Commissioner of Customs vs. Atul Automations Pvt. Ltd., which distinguished between prohibited and restricted items and allowed for the redemption of restricted goods on payment of the market value. The Delhi High Court in Vaibhav Sampat More vs. National Investigation Agency also held that the import of gold is restricted but not prohibited, subject to duty payment. The court referenced consistent rulings by the Madras High Court and other courts that supported the release of seized gold on payment of 50% of the duty. Conclusion: The court directed the petitioner to execute a bank guarantee for 50% of the customs duty, after which the gold bangles should be handed over to him within two weeks. The customs authorities were instructed to complete the adjudication proceedings within three months. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
|
