2017 (1) TMI 3 - AT - Customs

Court affirms Commissioner's decision on customs case involving gold bars confiscation, allows redemption upon payment.

Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow Versus Mohd. Nayab & Imtiyaz Idris

The court upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in a customs case involving the confiscation of two undeclared gold bars. The respondents' ... Illegal import - baggage rules - whether under the facts of circumstances whether absolute confiscation was warranted for the two Gold Bars/Biscuits recovered from each of the respondents weighting 111 gms approximately each, which was not declared to the Customs and found while respondents were walking out through green channel? Held that: - I find that the respondents had been working abroad in Saudi Arabia for the last 14 months. I further find that the quantity of 233.280 gms of gold each is not a commercial quantity and is valued at ₹ 7,05,672/- which cannot be said to be a quantity which the respondents could not purchase and import into India from their savings out of their earnings. Further, I find that the respondents could have imported gold up to 1 Kg each subject to proper declaration. Thus a case of non-declaration is made out at best, against the respondents. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who have upheld the order of confiscation with redemption fine, redeemable on deposit of duty and fine. I further find that the penalty imposed on the respondents, is adequate - absolute confiscation not needed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant-Revenue. Issues involved:1. Whether absolute confiscation was warranted for the two gold bars recovered from the respondents.2. Whether the respondents were eligible for bringing gold into India.3. Whether the penalty imposed on the respondents was appropriate.Analysis:1. The issue in this appeal revolved around the confiscation of two gold bars weighing approximately 111 gms each, which were not declared to Customs. The respondents claimed the gold bars were given to them by another individual to be delivered at the airport. The Customs seized the gold bars and issued a show cause notice for confiscation under relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondents contested the notice, arguing that they were ready to pay the duty and that gold was not prohibited for import. The Order-in-Original found the gold was illegally imported due to lack of proper declaration and held it liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act.2. The respondents appealed, claiming the gold was for personal use and should not be confiscated. They argued that they were intercepted before they could declare the gold and pay the duty, thus not violating any laws. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation but allowed redemption on deposit of duty and fine. The Revenue also appealed, contending that the gold was concealed and should be absolutely confiscated as prohibited goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed both appeals, stating that absolute confiscation was not warranted as the individuals from whom the gold was seized were identifiable, and the option of redemption was correctly given.3. The Revenue further argued that the respondents were attempting to smuggle the gold and should face absolute confiscation. However, the respondents maintained that they did not commit a serious offense as they were intercepted before reaching the Customs post for declaration. The Tribunal found that the quantity of gold imported was not commercial, and the respondents could have legally imported up to 1 Kg each with proper declaration. The penalty imposed was deemed appropriate, and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding confiscation with redemption fine and penalty.