TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Customs penalty for undeclared gold upheld despite appeal, carrier's re-export denied.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Chennai. Versus Smt. Suvina</h3> Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Chennai. Versus Smt. Suvina - TMI Issues Involved:1. Non-declaration of gold bangle by the respondent.2. Confiscation and penalty imposed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs.3. Order by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing re-export and reducing the penalty.4. Revision application by the Department challenging the Order-in-Appeal.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Non-declaration of Gold Bangle:The respondent, a Sri Lankan national, arrived from a flight and attempted to clear a gold bangle weighing 148.5 grams without declaring it to customs, violating Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962. The gold bangle was recovered after interception by Customs Officers immediately after the exit point. During the oral personal hearing, the respondent admitted to being a carrier of the gold bangle for monetary gains.2. Confiscation and Penalty Imposed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs:The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, in the Order-in-Original dated 23.06.2012, ordered:(i) Absolute confiscation of the gold bangle under Section 111(d), (I), and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (D&R) Act, 1992.(ii) Imposition of a penalty of Rs. 42,000 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Order by the Commissioner (Appeals) Allowing Re-export and Reducing the Penalty:The respondent appealed against the Order-in-Original. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the absolute confiscation, allowed redemption of the gold bangle for re-export on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 65,000, and reduced the penalty to Rs. 10,000. The Commissioner (Appeals) justified this by noting that the respondent was wearing the gold bangle and it was not concealed. Additionally, the respondent had no previous offenses registered.4. Revision Application by the Department Challenging the Order-in-Appeal:The Department filed a revision application under Section 129 DD of the Customs Act, 1962, arguing that the Commissioner (Appeals) ignored the fact that the respondent was a carrier and granted an unintended benefit. The Department cited several precedents where absolute confiscation was upheld in similar cases.Government's Observations and Decision:The Government carefully reviewed the case records and noted that the respondent admitted to being a carrier during the personal hearing before the adjudicating authority. This admission was considered a material piece of evidence. The Government held that the respondent, being a carrier, was not entitled to re-export the gold bangle. The Government relied on higher court decisions that supported absolute confiscation in such cases, emphasizing that goods liable for confiscation cannot be allowed for re-export.The Government concluded that the order by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing re-export was not legal and proper. The absolute confiscation ordered by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs was restored, and the penalty reduction by the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld.Final Order:The revision application succeeded, setting aside the re-export of the impugned goods and restoring the absolute confiscation. The Order-in-Appeal was modified accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
