TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the respondent, who carried undeclared gold bangle for consideration and was not the owner of the goods, was entitled to redemption and re-export under the Customs Act, 1962, and whether absolute confiscation ordered by the adjudicating authority was liable to be restored.
Analysis: The respondent was found wearing the gold bangle while passing through the green channel and did not declare it to Customs as required. Her statement before the adjudicating authority that she carried the goods for monetary consideration was treated as voluntary and was relied upon as material evidence. On that basis, the goods were held to have been attempted to be smuggled in contravention of the declaration obligation, attracting confiscation. The view that re-export could be allowed was rejected because the respondent was only a carrier, the goods were not bona fide baggage, and the statutory facility of re-export under Section 80 was held inapplicable in such circumstances. The reduction of penalty by the appellate authority was not interfered with.
Conclusion: The order permitting re-export was set aside and absolute confiscation was restored, while the reduced penalty was left undisturbed.
Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded to the extent that the impugned gold could not be redeemed or re-exported and stood absolutely confiscated, but the modified penalty position was maintained.
Ratio Decidendi: A passenger who acts as a carrier of undeclared gold for consideration is not entitled to re-export or redemption of the goods, and absolute confiscation is justified where the declaration requirement is violated and the goods are not bona fide baggage.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
