Petitioner's Declaration Deemed Bona Fide: Customs Act Section 111(d) Not Contravened

The court held that the petitioner did not contravene Section 111(d) of the Customs Act as the goods were not imported into the country. The petitioner's declaration was deemed bona fide, and there was no violation of customs laws. Consequently, the court quashed the confiscation and penalty orders, allowing the writ petition without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the confiscation and penalty imposed under Section 111(d) and Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Validity of the declaration and request for re-export under Sections 77 and 80 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Interpretation of "import" under the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the confiscation and penalty imposed under Section 111(d) and Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962:

The petitioner, an Indian citizen, arrived at Meenambakkam airport from Saigon on 7-2-1970 and declared his personal effects, including jewellery and diamonds valued at Rs. 80,850. The customs authorities issued a detention receipt based on this declaration. Subsequently, the Additional Collector of Customs issued a show cause notice under Section 111(d) for confiscation and Section 112 for personal penalty. The petitioner was penalized with a Rs. 40,000 fine and the goods were confiscated. The Central Board of Excise and Customs modified the order, allowing re-export on payment of another Rs. 40,000 fine. The petitioner paid the fine and re-exported the items. The Special Secretary to the Government of India reduced the fine to Rs. 5,000 and the penalty to Rs. 15,000, confirming the liability under Sections 111(d) and 112.

2. Validity of the declaration and request for re-export under Sections 77 and 80 of the Customs Act, 1962:

The petitioner claimed that he made a declaration under Section 77 and orally requested re-export under Section 80. The customs authorities detained the items as the petitioner lacked an import license or Reserve Bank permit. The Assistant Collector of Customs argued that the petitioner did not make an oral request for re-export and that his subsequent written request was an afterthought. The court noted that the petitioner made a full declaration upon entering the customs area and did not conceal the items. The court found the declaration to be bona fide and without hesitation, indicating compliance with Sections 77 and 80.

3. Interpretation of "import" under the Customs Act, 1962:

The court examined whether the petitioner had imported the goods under Section 111(d). Section 2(2) defines "import" as bringing into India from outside. The court referenced Supreme Court and Delhi High Court rulings, concluding that goods are not imported merely upon landing but must be incorporated into the country's mass of property. The court held that the petitioner did not import the goods as they had not crossed the customs barrier. The court emphasized that a declaration under Section 77 and a request under Section 80 indicate no intention to import.

Conclusion:

The court found that the petitioner did not contravene Section 111(d) as the goods were not imported into the country. The petitioner's declaration was bona fide, and he had not violated customs laws. The court quashed the confiscation and penalty orders, allowing the writ petition without costs.

---