2017 (9) TMI 1455 - HC - Customs

High Court Upholds Decision Dismissing Writ Petitions Seeking Redemption Option

The High Court upheld the decision of the Revisional Authority and other authorities, dismissing the Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners seeking ... Redemption fine - smuggling - electrical goods and iridium of highest purity - prohibited goods - Held that: - admittedly, the goods were not declared by the petitioners, while they landed in Chennai Airport - In terms of Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (D and R), Act, 1992, all goods, to which, sub-section (2) applies shall be deemed to be the goods, imported or exported, of which has been prohibited under Section 11 of the Act. Therefore, when the baggage of the petitioners was treated as non bona fide baggage, the goods therein were rightly treated as prohibited goods under Section 11 of the Act - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. Issues: Challenge to order passed by Revisional Authority under Section 129 DD of Customs Act, 1962 - Petitioners seeking redemption option under Section 125 of the Act.Analysis:1. Challenge to Revisional Authority's Order: The petitioners challenged the order passed by the Revisional Authority under Section 129 DD of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revision Applications filed by the petitioners were rejected by a common order dated 28.08.2012. The petitioners contended that the Authorities erred in not granting them the option to pay redemption fine under Section 125 of the Act. The adjudicating Authority had ordered absolute confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d)(l) and (m) of the Act and imposed a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act.2. Redemption Option under Section 125: The petitioners argued that the goods they brought were not prohibited goods, and therefore, they should have been granted the option to redeem them under Section 125 of the Act. Section 125(1) provides that in cases where confiscation of goods is authorized, the Officer adjudicating it may give the owner an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. However, the expression used in the section is 'may,' which applies to goods where importation/exportation is prohibited. If not prohibited, the Officer shall give the party an option to redeem.3. Goods Deemed Prohibited: The goods brought by the petitioners were not declared upon arrival at Chennai Airport. As per the Foreign Trade Policy and the Foreign Trade (D and R) Act, when goods are not declared and treated as non-bona fide baggage, they are deemed prohibited goods under Section 11 of the Act. The authorities upheld the absolute confiscation based on the attempted smuggling and non-declaration of goods.4. Judicial Review: The three authorities involved in the decision-making process provided independent reasons for rejecting the petitioners' request for redemption. The High Court found no factual or legal errors in the decision-making process that would warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the petitioners failed to establish grounds for challenging the impugned orders, leading to the dismissal of the Writ Petitions.In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decision of the Revisional Authority and other authorities, dismissing the Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners seeking redemption option under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.