Four passengers lose gold to absolute confiscation after failing to declare imports from Bangkok under Sections 111 and 112(a)

CESTAT New Delhi upheld absolute confiscation of gold seized from four passengers returning from Bangkok. The appellants failed to declare gold through red channel, were intercepted near exit gate, and did not satisfy legal import requirements under notification. Their statements confirmed awareness of customs procedures and gold's dutiable nature. The tribunal rejected arguments of prevention from declaration as afterthought, finding clear intent to smuggle. The gold, being of foreign origin and undeclared, constituted prohibited goods under Section 2(33) of Customs Act, 1962, making it liable for absolute confiscation under Sections 111 and 112(a). Appeal dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the gold import by the appellants.
2. Validity of the customs duty demand based on past import statements.
3. Justification for the redemption and re-export permissions granted by the adjudicating authority.

Summary:

1. Legality of the gold import by the appellants:
The appellants, intercepted at IGI Airport, New Delhi, were found carrying 5218 gms of gold without declaring it at the Red Channel as mandated by the Baggage Rules, 2016. They were deemed "ineligible passengers" under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus due to their frequent travels, which did not meet the required six-month stay abroad. The Tribunal upheld that the appellants' actions constituted an attempt to smuggle gold, making it "prohibited goods" under Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962, and thus liable for confiscation.

2. Validity of the customs duty demand based on past import statements:
The customs duty demand on past imports was based on the appellants' statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found these statements credible and corroborated by the modus operandi of the appellants, as evidenced by their previous visits and similar activities. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court rulings, asserting that such statements are substantive evidence and upheld the duty demand for the extended period.

3. Justification for the redemption and re-export permissions granted by the adjudicating authority:
The adjudicating authority had allowed redemption of the seized gold on payment of fine and permitted re-export for two appellants. However, the Tribunal modified this order, emphasizing that the appellants were caught attempting to smuggle gold, which is a prohibited activity. Citing precedents, the Tribunal ruled that the gold should be subject to absolute confiscation without any option for redemption or re-export.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected the appeals filed by the appellants, upheld the customs duty demand based on their past smuggling activities, and allowed the Department's appeal for absolute confiscation of the gold.

---