1987 (5) TMI 147 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Illegal import of goods without a valid license.
2. Failure to declare imported goods as required under Section 77 of the Customs Act.
3. Liability for confiscation of seized goods under Section 111(d) and Section 111(1) of the Customs Act.
4. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act.
5. Ownership of the goods and intention to clear them under Section 77 of the Customs Act.
6. Voluntariness of statements made by the appellant.

The judgment involves a case where the appellant arrived at Delhi airport and declared his luggage but was found with an unclaimed attache case containing valuable goods. The appellant initially denied connection with the case but later admitted to carrying it from Hong Kong. The appellant claimed he was to leave the case in the customs hall and be met by someone outside. The seized goods were valued at Rs. 71,300 and were confiscated by the Additional Collector, who also imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000 on the appellant. The appellant challenged this order through an appeal.

The charges against the appellant included illegal importation of goods without a valid license, failure to declare the goods as required by Section 77 of the Customs Act, and rendering himself liable for penal action under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The appellant contested the application of Section 77, arguing that he was not the owner of the goods and did not intend to clear them. The department argued that the appellant, as the importer, was considered the owner under Section 77, regardless of his alleged intention to abandon the goods.

The appellant did not contest the voluntariness of the statements made to the officers. The statements indicated that the appellant agreed to carry the attache case from Hong Kong to New Delhi in exchange for favors received. Even if the appellant claimed he intended to abandon the goods, the court found that his actions demonstrated an intention to import the goods into India for subsequent removal from the customs hall. The court clarified that Section 23(2) of the Customs Act, relating to relinquishing ownership to customs authorities, did not apply in this case.

Ultimately, the court upheld the Additional Collector's decision, stating that the appellant attempted to illegally import the goods without a valid license and failed to declare them as required. The court found the penalty imposed to be reasonable considering the appellant's education level and employment status. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the confiscation of the seized goods and the imposition of the penalty on the appellant.