9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isembarkation card handed over by them, no dutiable goods were mentioned. On suspicion, the baggage of the respondents/passengers were taken for the X-Ray, scanning, in which no dutiable goods were found. Thereafter, during process of frisking, while checking the wallets, two gold bars each, wrapped in white paper and tape were recovered from the purse of each of the respondents. The said gold bars were marked as /IHBTM, SUISSE, 10-Tolas, Fine Gold, 999.9. The said gold bars subject examination approved values, who certified that the recovered bars/biscuits are of gold totally weighting 466.560 gms valued at Rs. 14,11,344/- The goods were seized vide Panchanama on the same day as it was believed that the same is liable to confiscation under section 111 (i), (l) & (m) of Customs Act, 1962 read with baggage Rules, 1998 as amended. 3. In their statement dated 19/01/2014 recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962, both of them stated that they were working as welder in Saudi Arabia and further stated that they have returned to India after 14 months and the said gold found and seized were given to them by Shri Wali, who told them to secret the same in their walle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tated to him and the same was not voluntary & true and the respondent was bringing these two gold biscuits for the marriage of his sister. It was not concealed anywhere but kept in his wallet in the pocket of his shirt along with the purchase receipts. The gold biscuits, wallet, Nokia mobile phone and the purchase receipt of gold biscuits were taken over by the seizing Officer and a confessional statement had been extracted from him by intimidation and detaining him late in the night. The respondent could not dare to refuse for recording of his statement because of intense fear due to the fact that he had never faced such a situation. The respondent was working as a welder in Saudi Arabia since the year 2012 and was returning after 14 months of stay. He had purchased the gold biscuits with relevant receipt through Mr. Walliullah. He was not a carrier for the said Mr. Wali. He had purchased the gold biscuits for marriage of his sister which was scheduled in May 2014 as is evident from the annexed card. Further, as he was caught from the embarkation hall, at the time of fetching his luggage from conveyor belt, the time for the filing of declaration to the Customs officer, had n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... baggage Rules, 1998. As such, they have violated the para of 2.20 of Foreign Trade Policy-(2009-14) read with clause 3(1)(h) of Foreign Trade (Exemption from application of Rules in certain cases) Order, 1993 and the provisions of Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993. The imported gold was held to be illegally imported as not declared properly in terms of Section 77 of the Act and was held liable to confiscation in terms of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Nokia mobile phones were held not liable to confiscation. In so far the black color leather like material purse/wallet are concerned, were also not held liable for confiscation observing that gold being a valuable item, is usually not found kept in open, that too while travelling and recovery from the pocket, cannot be said to have been concealed/secreted except that the respondent failed to declare. Accordingly, the two gold bars recovered from each of the respondents, was held liable to confiscation with option to redeem on payment of duty and the redemption fine of Rs. with further penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- each under Section 112 of the Act and further penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each under Section 114 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whose the possession, the goods were seized, are available, hence, it makes no sense to confiscate the goods in absolute terms. He further found that the address of Shri Wali is not available which indicates that the person, who have handed over the gold bars to the respondents, is not known by location or otherwise. Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 while using the term "owner", identifies such owner as a person to whom the goods may be redeemed practically. It is for this reason that section 125 of the Act, also prescribes that where the "owner" is not known, the option of redemption would be given to the person from whose possession or custody such goods were seized, Further, holding that the option of redemption given to the respondents by the adjudicating authority, is correct. Further, the quantum of redemption fine imposed, was also found to the proper and reasonable, so far, penalty under section 112 of the Act is concerned, it was observed that the same was discretionary and cannot exceed the duty sought, to be evaded and thus, the penalty imposed of Rs. 1,00,000/- each was held to be proper and sustainable. 8. The learned AR for revenue have taken, through, the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
