1971 (7) TMI 56 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of undeclared items under Customs Act
2. Imposition of penalty for unauthorized importation
3. Failure to consider request for return of seized items
4. Alleged false declaration and importation of articles

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a citizen of Malaya, arrived in India with undeclared jewelry and watches. A notice was issued under the Customs Act for alleged unauthorized importation. The Collector of Customs confiscated gold items worth Rs. 53,813.14 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5000 under Section 112 of the Act. The petitioner appealed to the Central Board of Excise and Customs, then to the Government of India, and finally filed a writ petition challenging the confiscation order.

2. The petitioner's counsel raised two main contentions. Firstly, it was argued that the authorities did not address the petitioner's request for the return of seized items under Section 80 of the Customs Act. Secondly, it was contended that the petitioner did not import any article unauthorizedly, as the items were for personal use and of small value. The petitioner also disputed the reliance on his alleged confessional statement regarding the jewelry.

3. The court found that the petitioner's explanations lacked substance. The petitioner had declared the stones in the jewelry as imitation, but they were found to be real diamonds upon examination. The Collector of Customs observed that the jewelry did not show signs of use and were primarily intended for their gold value. The court noted that the petitioner's request for the return of items did not apply as he made a false declaration, and the Collector's decision was justified.

4. The court rejected the argument that the seized articles were for personal use and constant wearing, stating that the act of bringing items into India from outside constitutes importation under the Customs Act. The court upheld the Collector's decision of confiscation and penalty, finding no grounds for interference. The petitioner's contentions were deemed untenable, and the judgment favored the Collector's actions in the case.