2016 (7) TMI 227 - CGOVT - Customs

Import of goods in a baggage without declaration - restricted goods - 164 cartons of Cigarettes, one taka of black burkha cloth, 44 gold chains of different types/sizes weighing in to l 500 grams approximately. - it was submitted that, he applicant had approached the Customs officer on duty in the arrival lounge to declare the goods brought by him and had requested the officer to fill up the Customs declaration form. That had neither entered the green channel nor concealed any goods/ information from the Customs officers. That the applicant was not given an opportunity to make a true declaration of the goods brought by him and was apprehended by the officers before he could enter the red channel for payment of appropriate duties of Customs. Held that - Government observes that it is an uncontested fact that the impugned goods were not declared to the Customs under Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the passenger passed through the green channel. Government finds no merit in the plea of the applicant that it is difficult to conceal valuable goods like gold below the pant belt. It is a fact on record that during the search, it was found that the applicant had concealed two packets wrapped with brown tape around his stomach under the pant belt which on examination, were found to contain in all 44 gold chains of different types/sizes, totaling weighing 500 grams. Also, in his statement recorded under Section 108 he admitted that he had concealed the above said gold chains in order to avoid Customs Duty. Government observes that one of the contention of the applicant is that there is no column in the declaration form for declaration of gold and cigarettes. This is incorrect in as much as the declaration form has the column for declaring dutiable goods and the applicant cigarettes and the gold brought in by knew that the impugned goods had to be declared but has not declared it purposely with the intention of evading duty. This plea also holds no ground in view of the fact on record that the applicant is a frequent traveller. Government also observes that the applicant s averment on cross examination of witness does not cut any ice to prove his innocence. - confiscation and levy of penalty upheld - Decided against the applicant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the seizure of gold chains and cigarettes.
2. Validity of the applicant's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Compliance with Baggage Rules and Customs Declaration requirements.
4. Applicability of penalties under Sections 112 and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Seizure of Gold Chains and Cigarettes:
The applicant was intercepted at Bengaluru International Airport with 44 gold chains weighing 500 grams and 164 cartons of cigarettes. The gold chains were concealed around his stomach, and the cigarettes were in his baggage. The goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, for not being declared under Section 77 and for attempting to pass through the Green Channel without declaration. The Joint Commissioner of Customs ordered the absolute confiscation of the cigarettes and the gold chains with an option to redeem the gold on payment of redemption fine and applicable duties. The appellate authority upheld this decision, and the revision application was filed on the grounds that the applicant intended to declare the goods but was not given an opportunity.

2. Validity of the Applicant's Statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The applicant's statement recorded under Section 108 admitted to smuggling the goods to avoid customs duty. The statement was considered valid evidence, as per precedents set by the Supreme Court in Surjit Singh Chhabra vs. Union of India and Naresh J. Sukhawani vs. Union of India, which held that statements before Customs officers are material evidence. The applicant's retraction of the statement on grounds of duress was deemed an afterthought, and no evidence was provided to support the claim of coercion.

3. Compliance with Baggage Rules and Customs Declaration Requirements:
The applicant argued that the customs declaration form lacked specific columns for declaring gold and cigarettes. However, the government noted that the form had a column for declaring dutiable goods, and the applicant, being a frequent traveler, was aware of the requirement to declare such items. The applicant's failure to declare the goods was seen as an intentional act to evade duty. The claim that the gold chains were old family ornaments taken to Dubai for polishing was not substantiated with evidence. The applicant did not fulfill the conditions of Notification No. 78/2009, making him ineligible to import the gold under Rule 6 of the Baggage Rules.

4. Applicability of Penalties under Sections 112 and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962:
Penalties were imposed on the applicant under Sections 112(a) & (b)(v) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The government found the penalties reasonable and proportionate to the offense. The applicant's contention that the penalties were unjustified was dismissed, as the facts and circumstances of the case supported the imposition of penalties.

Conclusion:
The government upheld the Order-in-Appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the decision. The revision application was rejected for lack of merit, confirming the confiscation of the goods and the penalties imposed on the applicant. The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with customs regulations and the validity of statements made under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.