Undeclared gold baggage carried for consideration cannot claim re-export after absolute confiscation under customs law.

An undeclared gold bangle carried by a passenger acting as a paid carrier was treated as liable to absolute confiscation because the passenger's voluntary admission showed that she was transporting the goods for delivery to another person and not as bona fide baggage. On that basis, re-export was held impermissible under the Customs Act, 1962, and the earlier permission for re-export was set aside. The reduced penalty was not disturbed, as the contravention of the declaration requirement remained established but no further interference was justified on the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned gold bangle, carried without declaration by a passenger acting as a carrier for monetary consideration, was liable to absolute confiscation and whether re-export could be permitted under the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Whether the penalty was liable to interference.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned gold bangle, carried without declaration by a passenger acting as a carrier for monetary consideration, was liable to absolute confiscation and whether re-export could be permitted under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The respondent admitted before the adjudicating authority that the gold bangle was handed over to her for delivery outside Chennai Airport in consideration of travel arrangements, and the Government treated that admission as voluntary and evidentiary. On that basis, the respondent was held to be a carrier and not the owner of the goods. Since the goods were not declared as required and the respondent was not eligible for the claimed benefit, the case did not fall within the category of bona fide baggage eligible for re-export. The Government also relied on the settled position that goods liable to confiscation cannot be permitted to be re-exported merely because redemption was allowed by the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The permission for re-export was set aside and absolute confiscation was restored in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty was liable to interference.

Analysis: The respondent had contravened the declaration requirement and was found liable for penal action, but the Government found no reason to disturb the appellate authority's reduction of penalty in view of the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: The reduced penalty was sustained and no further interference was made on this aspect.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the extent of restoring absolute confiscation and rejecting re-export, while the reduced penalty ordered in appeal was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A passenger who is found, on a voluntary admission, to have carried undeclared goods for delivery to another for consideration cannot claim re-export of goods liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962.

---