9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Smuggling of gold and currency into India by concealment and non-declaration. 2. Seizure and confiscation of goods and currencies under the Customs Act. 3. Redemption of confiscated gold bars/coins and currencies. 4. Penalty imposition under Section 112 of the Customs Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. The case involved the interception of an individual at the airport suspected of smuggling gold and currency into India by concealing them in his baggage and on his person. The customs officer seized various items, including gold bars and coins, foreign currencies, and materials used for concealment. The individual did not possess a valid permit for importing the gold bars/coins, leading to the seizure of goods under a Mahazar. The appellant admitted to smuggling in a recorded statement but later retracted it, claiming he had declared all goods to the customs officer. The department rejected the retraction, and a show cause notice was issued for confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act. 2. The Commissioner of Customs ordered the absolute confiscation of the gold bars, coins, and currencies under specific sections of the Customs Act. The appellant contested this decision through his advocate, arguing for redemption based on previous tribunal and court judgments allowing redemption of confiscated items upon payment of fines. The appellant's counsel relied on various case laws to support the redemption plea, emphasizing that redemption should be allowed for unauthorized imports of gold and foreign currencies. 3. The appellate tribunal carefully considered the submissions and legal precedents cited by both sides. Following the approach established in previous cases, the tribunal upheld the confiscation of the gold bars and coins but allowed redemption upon payment of fines. The tribunal also permitted the redemption of the foreign and Indian currencies upon payment of specified fines. Additionally, the tribunal affirmed the imposition of a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, considering it to be reasonable in this case. 4. As a result, the impugned order was modified to allow redemption of the confiscated items upon payment of fines, in line with the tribunal's interpretation of relevant case law and legal provisions. The penalty imposed on the appellant was upheld as reasonable, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on a specified date.
|
