Undeclared baggage carried for another person can be absolutely confiscated, with no redemption benefit under customs law.

Imported camera carried by a passenger for another person, and not declared through the green channel, was treated as outside bona fide baggage under the Baggage Rules and not as a bona fide gift or article for the passenger's own use under the Customs Act. On the passenger's own admission that the camera was meant for delivery to someone else in India, the goods were held liable to absolute confiscation. Redemption under section 125 was found impermissible, and the appellate relief was set aside. The objection to maintainability of the revision was rejected because the filing officer was duly authorised.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported camera, carried by the passenger for another person and not declared in the green channel, was liable to absolute confiscation and whether redemption under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be allowed.

Analysis: The passenger's own statement before the adjudicating authority was treated as a voluntary admission that the camera was being carried for someone else in India. On that basis, the goods were held not to form part of bona fide baggage within rule 7 of the Baggage Rules and could not be treated as a bonafide gift or article for the passenger's use under section 79(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the goods were brought without declaration and were intended for delivery to another person, the authority held that the carrier could not claim the benefit of redemption and that the appellate authority had erred in extending such relief. The objection regarding maintainability of the revision was also rejected on the finding that the filing officer had due authorization.

Conclusion: The goods were rightly held liable to absolute confiscation and redemption was not permissible; the revision was allowed and the original order was restored.

---