9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the adjudication form after seizure of goods :- I arrived by Flight No. AI-116 623-87 along with my family. I opted toward through green channel. At the exit gate I was diverted and on examination of baggage this 227.4 grms. of gold was found, concealed in my baggage which I did not declare . The appellant pleaded before the Additional Collector that she did not know that she had to declare the gold items brought by her. She stated that she had brought gold items for making jewellery in India. The Additional Collector of Customs held that the gold items had not been declared by the appellant and therefore liable to confiscation. Personal penalty of Rs. 500/- was also imposed. The appellant was also allowed 80 grms. of gold items valued at Rs. 16,000/- TBRE rules. 3. The learned advocate for the appellant pleaded that appellants husband a Mechanical Engineer and was employed in USA. She had come to visit her in-laws and other relations. He pleaded that she had not concealed the jewellery but kept it in her purse and pointed out that the seizing officer had also clearly mentioned that these were found in her hand bag. He pleaded that the appellant was a tourist and was so tre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thing. He also mentioned that apart from this jewellery, the appellant was also not carrying any other high valued articles. 4. The learned SDR for the Department Shri Rakesh Bhatia stated that the appellant had visited India earlier in 1985 and therefore she was expected to be aware of the rules. He pleaded that the appellant was required to give a declaration in terms of Section 77 of the Customs Act and in as much as she has not given any declaration about the jewellery carried by her, the same was liable to be confiscated. He was asked as to whom and at what point of time on entry in the Baggage Hall the appellant was required to give declaration and also whether there was any provision to make written declaration as she entered Customs Baggage Hall. He stated that he cannot say whether she was asked by any officer before she started walking through the green channel to give any declaration of the baggage carried by her nor as to whether there was any arrangement for the passenger to give any declaration. He conceded that as per procedure in vogue to expedite clearance, those passengers who are not carrying any dutiable baggage could walk through the green channel. He stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... import of baggage free of duty and the personal effects which includes personal jewellery. I proceed first to consider whether in terms of Section 77, there has been any violation by the appellant. The declaration required to be filed under this section has to be before the proper officer. There is nothing on record to show nor is there any plea that the appellant was called upon to make a declaration before any officer until she was intercepted at the exit gate. On a pointed query, from the Bench to the SDR as to whether the appellant was accosted by any officer before she entered green channel or she was asked at any time to make declaration the learned SDR could not say that this was done. A declaration could have been made by the passenger only when there was a proper officer to receive the declaration. No evidence has been produced to show that appellant had given any declaration even on the customs disembarkation card which normally would have been filled in by her. The learned SDR stated that the same could not be produced. The revenue has pleaded that since the appellant had chosen the green channel for clearance through customs she can be presumed to have given a declarat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the present case as seen from the record no examination of baggage etc. was done till she reached the exit gate and no fault therefore could be found with the appellant for not having filed the list in which jewellery should have been entered. It is seen from the order of the lower authority that confiscation has been done for non-declaration of the jewellery. Relevant portion of the lower authority order is reproduced below : The passenger was walking through the green channel when she was diverted. From the passport I hold that the passenger had earlier come to the country in 1985. Therefore I cannot accept the contention that she did not know that she had to declare the gold particularly when she is an Indian. In spite of the non-declaration, the Baggage Officers have extended the benefit of TBRE for items like Mangalasutra. In the circumstances, 1 hold that the officers have been very lenient towards the passenger. Gold weighing 227.4 gms. valued at Rs. 43,452 have been imported in the form of jewellery and karas (not?) under a valid permit from the RBI. The gold in the form of jewellery and karas is therefore liable to confiscation under Section 113(1) of FERA read wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
