Redemption in customs confiscation: eligible passenger's undeclared goods were not fit for absolute confiscation, and penalties were reduced.

An eligible passenger's undeclared gold jewellery, foreign currency and television could be confiscated for non-declaration at the green channel, but absolute confiscation was not justified because the goods were not inherently prohibited and were otherwise importable on payment of duty. Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 required an opportunity of redemption where the goods were not barred absolutely, so redemption fine and appropriate customs duty were to be imposed instead. The Tribunal also found the original penalties excessive in the circumstances and reduced them. The confiscation order was therefore modified to substitute redemption for absolute confiscation, with consequential reduction of penalties.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the gold jewellery, foreign currency and television seized from an eligible passenger were liable to absolute confiscation, or whether an option for redemption should have been granted; (ii) whether the penalties imposed on the passengers required reduction.

Issue (i): whether the gold jewellery, foreign currency and television seized from an eligible passenger were liable to absolute confiscation, or whether an option for redemption should have been granted

Analysis: The appellant was an eligible passenger under Notification No. 31/2003-Cus dated 01.03.2003 and the goods were not shown to be inherently prohibited. The record showed seizure at the green channel, non-declaration of dutiable goods, and reliance on retracted statements, but the passenger had also produced purchase invoices and foreign currency sufficient for payment of duty. In these circumstances, the goods could be confiscated, but absolute confiscation was not justified. The statutory scheme under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 required an opportunity of redemption in respect of goods otherwise importable on payment of duty.

Conclusion: Absolute confiscation was not sustained, and redemption was to be permitted on payment of redemption fine and appropriate customs duty.

Issue (ii): whether the penalties imposed on the passengers required reduction

Analysis: The passenger had proceeded through the green channel without declaring the goods, but there was no material showing concealment of the jewellery, and the surrounding facts justified leniency on quantum. The Tribunal considered the penalties excessive in the circumstances and found that a reduced penalty would meet the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The penalties were reduced.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation order was modified by substituting redemption fine in place of absolute confiscation, with consequential reduction of penalties, and the appeals were allowed only to that extent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods carried by an eligible passenger are otherwise importable on payment of duty, non-declaration may justify confiscation, but absolute confiscation is inappropriate and redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 should ordinarily be allowed.

---