1998 (12) TMI 181 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Search and seizure of undeclared gold.
2. Ownership and concealment of gold.
3. Validity of panchanamas and statements.
4. Eligibility for import concessions under Notification 171/94.
5. Prohibition and redemption of imported gold.
6. Penalties imposed on appellants.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Search and Seizure of Undeclared Gold:
The facts of the case involve the search and seizure of undeclared gold from two appellants, who were found carrying gold bars concealed in their undergarments and shoes. The gold was seized by customs officers at the airport, and both appellants were questioned about the source and purpose of the gold.

2. Ownership and Concealment of Gold:
Geeta Maciejovsky claimed that the gold she was carrying was given to her by her mother, Mohini Bhatia, who purchased it from family savings. Bhatia confirmed that she gave the gold to her daughter. The Commissioner found that the gold belonged to Bhatia and was not declared to customs officers, thus liable for confiscation.

3. Validity of Panchanamas and Statements:
The appellants questioned the correctness of the panchanamas and statements, alleging coercion. The Tribunal found no significant issue with the additions in the panchanamas and concluded that the statements were voluntarily given. The Tribunal noted that the recovery of gold from Geeta Maciejovsky was established and her statement was not retracted until the reply to the show cause notice.

4. Eligibility for Import Concessions under Notification 171/94:
The Commissioner found that Bhatia did not satisfy the criteria specified in Notification 171/94, which permits the import of gold by passengers. The Tribunal upheld this finding, noting that Bhatia overstayed in India beyond the period specified in the notification, making her ineligible for the concession.

5. Prohibition and Redemption of Imported Gold:
The Tribunal considered the argument that the import of gold was no longer prohibited and that the adjudicating authority should permit its redemption on appropriate fine. The Tribunal referred to the definition of "prohibited goods" in Section 2(33) of the Act and concluded that the gold was not prohibited for import at the relevant time. Therefore, an option had to be given to the importer to redeem the gold on payment of a fine.

6. Penalties Imposed on Appellants:
The Tribunal considered the penalties imposed on the appellants and found them commensurate with the gravity of the offence and the value of the gold seized. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, reducing the redemption fines to Rs. 2.50 lakhs for Geeta Maciejovsky and Rs. 6 lakhs for Mohini Bhatia. The Tribunal also denied the request for re-export of the gold, stating that the conduct of the appellants did not justify such relief.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the gold and the penalties imposed on the appellants, with modifications to the redemption fines. The appeals were allowed in part, and consequential relief was granted.