Baggage gold importation and non-declaration: redemption confiscation and penalty sustained, absolute confiscation rejected

Gold bars brought in baggage were held not to warrant absolute confiscation because the respondents had stayed abroad for about 14 months, the quantity was not commercial, and the goods were otherwise importable subject to declaration under the baggage regime. The record supported, at most, non-declaration. On that basis, confiscation with redemption fine and the penalty was properly sustained, and interference with the appellate order was not called for. Absolute confiscation was therefore rejected, while redemption on payment of duty and fine remained in force.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of gold bars brought by the respondents was liable to be converted from redemption-confiscation to absolute confiscation, and whether the redemption fine and penalty sustained by the appellate authority called for interference.

Analysis: The respondents had stayed abroad for about 14 months and the gold recovered was not found to be of commercial quantity. The goods were otherwise importable subject to declaration under the baggage regime, and the circumstances did not justify treating the case as one warranting absolute confiscation. The record supported, at most, a case of non-declaration. In such a situation, the appellate authority was justified in sustaining confiscation with redemption fine and in maintaining the penalty as adequate.

Conclusion: The request for absolute confiscation was rejected, and the order allowing redemption on payment of duty and fine with the penalty sustained was upheld.

---