9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er was also mentioned by him, but nowhere has he tried to offer any explanation with regard to the source of acquiring the gold ornaments in question, proof for his employment in Dubai, proof of purchase like invoices of the said gold ornaments, etc., which means that the he has never discharged the onus on him in terms of Section 123 ibid. Moreover, mensrea may not be relevant in such cases since in this case, the gold was found well-concealed. It is also immaterial whether the gold in question belonged to him or he was doing it for someone else. Gold was found in his possession and hence, he is answerable, in terms of Section 123 ibid. Hence, the only recourse for the authorities was to treat the same as smuggled goods and confiscate, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellant had arrived at Bangalore Airport from Dubai on 17.11.2009 and he was carrying a checked-in baggage. Upon his arrival, he was asked for his Customs baggage clearance slip wherein the value of dutiable goods was declared as nil and hence, he chose to come out in the green channel. Further examination of his baggage was conducted, but to no avail. The appellant, thereafter, repeatedly answered in the negative when asked as to whether he was carrying any valuables on his person, which prompted the officers to subject the appellant for a thorough examination in the presence of independent witnesses. During the course of exami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontentions as well as written submissions. 5. The appellant has mainly questioned the confiscation of gold inter alia on the grounds that the goods in question was not prohibited goods and that an individual passenger was allowed to bring gold up to 5 kgs and that in view of the liberalization policy, the gold ornaments imported should be released to the appellant or allowed to be re-exported. Consequently, he has also questioned the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) ibid imposed on him. 6. Learned Advocate for the appellant took us through the grounds-of-appeal where he has taken all possible grounds, apart from relying on decisions of various judicial fora. 7. Per contra, Learned Representative for the Revenue, rebutted each ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t did not declare to the authorities and did not seek to pay applicable duty on the gold. He also did not prove the bona fide purchase of the gold in question and all throughout his claim was that one Imran had given him the gold. Under these circumstances, we do not see any reasons to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Commissioner in not allowing the goods to be redeemed. 10. This is a case where a passenger was found in possession of gold to such extent that is not permissible under any law, the same was found hidden without declaring, which made the said gold in question liable for confiscation within the meaning of Section 111 ibid and therefore, we see that the imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
