High Court affirms confiscation of undeclared gold jewelry and penalty imposition for customs duty evasion

The High Court upheld the order passed by the revisional authority for the confiscation of undeclared gold jewelry and imposition of a penalty. The court found that the petitioner failed to meet the conditions of an "eligible passenger" and attempted to evade customs duty by not declaring the jewelry. Despite the petitioner's arguments, including seeking permission for re-export, the court supported the confiscation based on independent reasons provided in the impugned order. The High Court declined to interfere with the decision, dismissing the writ petition without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by revisional authority under Customs Act, 1962 for confiscation of undeclared gold jewelry and imposition of penalty.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the revisional authority under section 129 DD of the Customs Act, 1962, against the confiscation of gold jewelry carried by him. The third respondent had ordered confiscation of the gold jewelry under section 111 (d), (l), and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, along with imposing a penalty of &8377; 32,000 under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner, in his voluntary statement, admitted to carrying the gold jewelry without declaring it to the customs, leading to the confiscation order.

The petitioner appealed to the appellate authority, which upheld the confiscation order. The appellate authority found that the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions as per Notification No.31/2003, which defines an "eligible passenger." The petitioner was accused of attempting to smuggle the gold jewelry by not making a true declaration and passing through the Green Channel to evade customs duty. The second respondent confirmed the confiscation order, prompting the petitioner to file a revision petition before the first respondent.

The revisional authority rejected the revision petition after considering the petitioner's contentions. The petitioner argued that the gold jewelry was not a prohibited item and sought permission for re-export. However, the first respondent, in the impugned order, provided independent reasons for upholding the confiscation. The first respondent referred to a decision of the Bombay High Court, upheld by the Supreme Court, to support the confiscation order. The High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, declined to interfere with the factual findings and reasons given by the first respondent, dismissing the writ petition.

In conclusion, the High Court found no grounds for interference with the order passed by the revisional authority regarding the confiscation of the undeclared gold jewelry and imposition of the penalty. The petitioner's arguments were considered but ultimately not deemed sufficient to overturn the decision. The writ petition was dismissed without costs.

---