9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant had given any declaration in terms of Section 77 of the Customs Act and whether there was any misdeclaration involved? 2. Whether there has been concealment of the goods on the part of the appellant? Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Declaration under Section 77 of the Customs Act and Misdeclaration: The appellant, a tourist of Indian origin, arrived in India and was intercepted at the exit gate of the Green Channel at the Indira Gandhi International Airport. Upon examination, gold items were found in her hand baggage, which she did not declare. The appellant contended that she was unaware of the requirement to declare the gold items and that she had brought them for making jewelry in India. The Additional Collector of Customs confiscated the gold items and imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 500/-. The appellant argued that she was treated as a tourist and that under Rule 3 and Rule 7 of the Tourist Baggage Rules, personal effects, including personal jewelry, are permitted free of duty. The appellant claimed that no declaration was asked for until she reached the exit gate, and she declared the jewelry when intercepted. The Department's representative argued that the appellant, having visited India earlier, was expected to be aware of the rules and was required to give a declaration under Section 77 of the Customs Act. However, the representative could not confirm whether the appellant was asked to make a declaration before entering the Green Channel or if there was any provision for making a written declaration. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence that the appellant was called upon to make a declaration before being intercepted and that a declaration could only be made if a proper officer was present to receive it. The Tribunal found no violation of the rules by the appellant as she was treated as a tourist and was allowed to clear personal effects, including personal jewelry, free of duty. 2. Concealment of Goods: The appellant's jewelry was found in her hand baggage, which she claimed was her purse. The Tribunal observed that a purse is a normal place for a lady to keep her personal jewelry while traveling. There were no findings by the lower authority on the concealment of the jewelry or any evidence that it was kept in a way to evade detection. The Tribunal held that there was no concealment as such and that the appellant did not violate any law or instructions for clearance through the Green Channel. The jewelry was considered personal jewelry, and there were no adverse findings by the lower authority regarding its nature. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the lower authority's order was not maintainable in law and that the appellant should be allowed the benefit under the Tourist Baggage Rules. The appeal was allowed, and the confiscated goods were to be returned to the appellant. Summary: The Tribunal found that the appellant did not violate Section 77 of the Customs Act as there was no evidence she was asked to make a declaration before being intercepted at the exit gate. The jewelry was considered personal jewelry, and there was no concealment. The lower authority's order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting the appellant the benefit under the Tourist Baggage Rules.
|
