Court sets aside order on gold seizure, remands for re-adjudication due to lack of consideration. Petitioner granted opportunity.

The court set aside the impugned order in a case involving the interception and seizure of gold, remanding the matter for re-adjudication. It found a lack of consideration by the authorities on the discretionary option under Section 125 of the Customs Act and the classification of the gold as restricted or prohibited. The petitioner was granted an opportunity to present their case, emphasizing the importance of consistency in decision-making by quasi-judicial bodies. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the interception and seizure of gold.
2. Whether the gold is considered prohibited or restricted goods.
3. Applicability of Section 125 of the Customs Act regarding the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation.
4. Consistency in the application of discretion by authorities in similar cases.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Interception and Seizure of Gold:
The petitioner, intercepted at Tiruchi International Airport, was found carrying 1147.2 grams of gold jewelry valued at Rs. 35,48,651/-. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers, acting on specific intelligence, followed and intercepted the petitioner and six other passengers. The petitioner admitted to carrying the gold for monetary consideration, not declaring it, and being aware that smuggling gold is an offense. Statements were obtained under Section 108 of the Customs Act, and a show cause notice was issued for confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(i) of the Act.

2. Whether the Gold is Considered Prohibited or Restricted Goods:
The petitioner argued that the gold was not prohibited but restricted, and mere non-declaration does not render it prohibited. The authorities, however, treated the gold as prohibited due to non-compliance with import regulations. The appellate and revisional authorities upheld this view, emphasizing that non-compliance with import conditions renders the goods prohibited under Section 2(33) of the Act and relevant judgments.

3. Applicability of Section 125 of the Customs Act Regarding the Option to Pay a Fine in Lieu of Confiscation:
The petitioner contended that under Section 125 of the Act, the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation should be mandatory for non-prohibited goods and discretionary for prohibited goods. The authorities rejected this, citing the petitioner's criminal intent to evade customs duty. The court highlighted that the adjudicating authority must address whether the discretion to offer the option of paying a fine should be exercised, considering the facts and circumstances.

4. Consistency in the Application of Discretion by Authorities in Similar Cases:
The petitioner cited previous cases where similar importers were granted the option to pay a fine. The court noted that the appellate and revisional authorities failed to address these precedents and the petitioner's argument regarding the nature of the gold as restricted rather than prohibited. The court emphasized the importance of consistency in fiscal matters and the need for quasi-judicial authorities to apply their minds to all issues and materials before arriving at a conclusion.

Conclusion:
The court found non-application of mind by the appellate and revisional authorities regarding the discretion under Section 125 of the Act and the nature of the gold as restricted or prohibited. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the first respondent for re-adjudication, ensuring an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction, and no costs were imposed.

---