1993 (9) TMI 220 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Confiscation of gold bangles and gold chain under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act
- Imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 7,000 under Section 111(a) of the Act
- Transfer of appeal to a different bench
- Allegations of non-declaration and confiscation
- Nature of the ornaments and their classification
- Request for re-export of the ornaments
- Permissible limits of free baggage allowance
- Grant of permission for re-export
- Imposition of personal penalty

Analysis:

The appeal challenged the Order-in-Original confiscating gold bangles and a gold chain under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 7,000 under Section 111(a) of the Act. The appellant, a housewife, returned from abroad and landed at Sahar International Air Port, Bombay, claiming concession under the Baggage (Transfer of Residence) Rules. She had worn the gold ornaments but did not declare them, leading to their detection at the metal detector. The appellant argued that the ornaments were for regular use and there was no mis-declaration, citing precedent. The respondent contended that the appellant concealed the ornaments and attempted smuggling, justifying confiscation. The Tribunal noted that the ornaments were worn openly, not concealed, and appeared to be regular wear for an Indian woman, thus rejecting the non-declaration claim.

Regarding the nature of the ornaments, the appellant admitted to wearing them for two years, but they were considered in crude form based on her statement. However, no independent evidence supported this claim. The Tribunal held that mere crude form did not constitute gold bullion, as per precedent, and could not warrant confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The appellant exceeded the free baggage limit but sought re-export permission, citing the expiration of the stay period under Transfer of Residence Rules. The Tribunal granted re-export on payment of a fine, considering the appellant's belief in the ornaments' permissibility and lack of mala fide intent.

As for the personal penalty, the appellant was liable under Section 112(a) of the Act for bringing the ornaments to India. Despite this, the Tribunal reduced the penalty to Rs. 1,000 due to mitigating circumstances. The decision allowed the appellant to re-export the ornaments within three months, failing which confiscation would occur. The judgment balanced the enforcement of customs regulations with leniency based on the appellant's circumstances and intentions, ensuring fair treatment in the resolution of the case.