2000 (7) TMI 96 - HC - Customs

Admission of concealing gold bars exempts petitioner from procedural requirements

The High Court upheld the order of confiscation of gold bars under the Customs Act, 1962. The court found that the petitioner's admission of concealing ... Confiscation - Search and seizure of person - Screening/Xray of body - Production before Magistrate - Admission of secreted goods and voluntary submission - Section 103(8) exception to procedural requirementAdmission of secreted goods and voluntary submission - Section 103(8) exception to procedural requirement - Production before Magistrate - Whether the procedural requirements of Section 103 (production before a Magistrate and screening/Xray) were necessary where the person admitted that goods liable to confiscation were secreted inside his body, and whether noncompliance with Section 102 or Section 103 invalidated the order of confiscation. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that Section 103 contains its own procedural regime for cases where the Proper Officer has reason to believe goods are secreted inside a person's body, including production before a Magistrate and, if necessary, screening or Xray. However, subsection (8) of Section 103 creates a distinct exception: where the person admits that goods liable to confiscation are secreted inside his body and voluntarily submits for suitable action, the safeguards in Section 103 do not apply. Sections 102 and 103 operate in different factual settings: Section 102 governs searches under Sections 100/101 and the person's entitlement to be taken before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate on request, whereas Section 103 prescribes Magistratedirected measures when the Proper Officer has reason to believe goods are secreted. In the present case the factual findings recorded by the authorities (including admissions in the panchnama and statement under Section 108) establish that the petitioner admitted the recovery and seizure of the goods and voluntarily submitted to suitable action; accordingly the procedural requirements of Section 103 were not applicable and noncompliance with production under Section 103 did not vitiate the confiscation. Having applied this legal distinction to the recorded facts, the Court declined to interfere with the confiscation order. [Paras 6]The petition is dismissed and the confiscation upheld on the basis that Section 103(8) applied to the admitted secreted goods, making the Magistrateproduction/screening procedure unnecessary.Final Conclusion: Confiscation of the gold upheld; where a person admits that goods liable to confiscation are secreted inside his body and voluntarily submits to their removal, the procedural protections in Section 103 (including production before a Magistrate and screening/Xray) do not apply and failure to invoke Section 102/103 procedures does not invalidate the confiscation. Issues:Challenge to the order of confiscation of gold bars under the Customs Act, 1962 based on procedural grounds.Analysis:The case involved a challenge to the order of confiscation of gold bars weighing 466.400 gms. along with black adhesive tape under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner, holding an Indian Passport, was found with undeclared gold bars in his possession upon detailed examination by Customs Authorities. The petitioner had declared textile and wristwatches but failed to declare the gold bars. The adjudicating authority imposed a redemption fine and penalty, which was later confirmed in appeal and revision. The Revisional Authority reduced the penalty but upheld the confiscation. The petitioner argued that the procedure under Sections 102 and 103 of the Act was not followed properly, specifically highlighting the lack of a voluntary statement and insufficient notice under Section 102.The court examined Sections 102 and 103 of the Customs Act, which deal with the search of persons and the screening of suspected persons for concealed goods. Section 102 provides for the search of a person by Customs Officers and the option for the person to be taken before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. On the other hand, Section 103 pertains to cases where the Proper Officer suspects goods are hidden inside a person's body, allowing for detention and production before a Magistrate. The court noted that the case fell under Section 103(8), exempting persons who admit to concealing goods and voluntarily submit for suitable action. Given the factual findings and the admission by the petitioner, the court held that the provisions of Sections 102 and 103 were correctly applied in the case. Therefore, the petition challenging the confiscation order was dismissed.In conclusion, the High Court upheld the order of confiscation of the gold bars based on the proper application of the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The court found that the petitioner's admission of concealing the gold bars exempted him from the strict procedural requirements under Sections 102 and 103. The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with statutory procedures and upheld the decision of the Customs Authorities regarding the confiscation and penalty imposed on the petitioner.