2022 (11) TMI 441 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - Gold - petitioner had not made any declaration or sought permission for the import of the gold - Confiscation - penalty - HELD THAT - The Authorities have been more than liberal in deciding the revision application. While confirming the facts in question, the Government has set aside the confiscation of the gold and has permitted redemption for re-export on payment of redemption fine of Rs.20,00,00/- under Section 125 of the Act. The penalty imposed has also been reduced to a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and the penalty of a sum of Rs.10,000/-, under Section 114AA, was set aside. No justification is made out for intervention in the impugned order and, in fact, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly, restricts his plea to leniency. In light of the fact that the petitioner has, admittedly, brought in gold without either a declaration or a permit, there is no avenue to intervene in the impugned order, particularly seeing as the order is discretionary one and no error, much less perversity, is made out in the same. There is no merit in this writ petition - Petition dismissed.

Issues: Smuggling of gold, confiscation under Customs Act, penalty imposition, appeal dismissal, revision filing, redemption for re-export, reduction of penalty, intervention plea, discretionary order, challenge restriction, counter affidavit support.

Smuggling of Gold:
The petitioner was intercepted at Chennai International Airport on suspicion of smuggling gold. Gold chains, bangles, and bars were found on her person without declaration or permission for import, leading to confiscation under the Customs Act.

Confiscation and Penalty Imposition:
The confiscated gold valued at Rs.46,05,666/- was seized under Sections 111(d) and (1) of the Customs Act, with a penalty of Rs.4,60,000/- imposed under Section 112(a). The petitioner's appeal against this decision was dismissed by the first Appellate Authority.

Appeal Dismissal and Revision Filing:
The petitioner's attempt to retract her statement, claiming it was recorded under duress, was rejected by the Appellate Authority. Subsequently, a revision was filed before the Central Government under Section 129DD of the Act, which was also dismissed in the impugned order dated 27.08.2018.

Redemption for Re-export and Penalty Reduction:
The Central Government, in a more lenient approach, allowed redemption for re-export of the gold on payment of a fine of Rs.20,00,00/- under Section 125 of the Act. The penalty was reduced to Rs.4,00,000/-, with an additional penalty of Rs.10,000/- set aside under Section 114AA.

Intervention Plea and Discretionary Order:
The petitioner's plea for intervention in the impugned order was not justified, as she had imported gold without declaration or permit. The order was discretionary, and no error or perversity was found in it, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

Challenge Restriction and Counter Affidavit Support:
The Senior Panel Counsel argued that the revenue did not challenge the impugned order due to monetary limits. However, the counter affidavit by respondents supported the revisional authority's conclusion in the impugned order, contradicting the argument of challenge restriction.

Conclusion:
The High Court confirmed the impugned order, dismissing the writ petition with no costs, as no merit was found in the petitioner's claims. The decision upheld the confiscation, penalty reduction, and redemption for re-export, emphasizing the discretionary nature of the order and lack of grounds for intervention.

← Previous Next →