Customs upholds confiscation of gold jewelry from Dubai traveler, imposes fine & penalties under Customs Act

The Commissioner of Customs upheld the confiscation of gold jewelry weighing 264.000 grams and valued at &8377; 6,27,982/- from an individual arriving from Dubai, imposing a redemption fine of &8377; 1 lac, customs duty, and a penalty of &8377; 1,00,000 under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant's claim of Indian purchase was unsupported, failing to meet the burden of proof under Section 123. The request for re-export was denied, and the imposition of the redemption fine, customs duty at 36.05%, and penalty was upheld, with the revision application dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Confiscation of gold jewelry upon arrival at the airport.
2. Burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Request for re-export of confiscated goods.
4. Imposition of redemption fine, customs duty, and penalty.

Confiscation of gold jewelry:
The case involved the confiscation of one gold bracelet/kada and two gold chains from the applicant upon his arrival from Dubai. The items collectively weighed 264.000 grams and were valued at &8377; 6,27,982/-. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the confiscation order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, imposing a redemption fine of &8377; 1 lac, applicable customs duty, and a penalty of &8377; 1,00,000 under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant claimed the gold was purchased in India and sought clearance without fines or duties, arguing that he was a resident of Dubai and the gold was not concealed.

Burden of proof under Section 123:
The applicant failed to provide substantial evidence to prove the Indian origin of the confiscated goods, except for purchase invoices which were deemed insufficient. The burden of proof, as per Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, was on the applicant to demonstrate that the goods were not smuggled. Despite being asked for evidence regarding the mode of payment and his presence in India during the purchase dates, the applicant could not substantiate his claim. Consequently, his contention was rejected, and the burden of proof remained unfulfilled.

Request for re-export of confiscated goods:
The applicant did not seek permission for re-exporting the confiscated goods before the lower authorities. The Government determined that re-export at this stage was not a viable option, thereby denying the request for re-export of the confiscated items.

Imposition of redemption fine, customs duty, and penalty:
The adjudicating authority correctly imposed a redemption fine of &8377; 1 lac for the release of goods, in addition to applicable customs duty at 36.05%. The Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal were upheld, and the Government found no deficiencies in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. Consequently, the revision application filed by the applicant was rejected, affirming the original decision regarding the redemption fine, customs duty, and penalty.

---