1985 (9) TMI 201 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds seizure of undeclared contraband goods & penalty on passenger for possession of concealed gold.

ABDUL GAFOOR Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS

ABDUL GAFOOR Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 480 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Importation of contraband goods in a brown suit case2. Importation of gold jewellery without declaration3. Opportunity for re-export of gold jewellery4. Denial of baggage allowance and confiscation of goods5. Validity of penalty imposedAnalysis:Issue 1: Importation of contraband goods in a brown suit caseThe judgment details a case where a passenger landed in India with undeclared goods in his possession. The passenger was found with gold jewellery and tape recorder heads concealed in his baggage. The Tribunal considered whether the passenger could be held liable for importing contraband goods in a brown suit case that was not in his name. The Tribunal examined the circumstances of the case, including the passenger's statement about carrying the goods for someone else. The Additional Collector had passed an order seizing the goods, which was upheld by the Tribunal in a previous appeal. The applicant raised the issue of whether he could be held responsible for the goods in the brown suit case.Issue 2: Importation of gold jewellery without declarationThe Tribunal also addressed the issue of the passenger importing gold jewellery without declaring it. The passenger had not declared the gold jewellery weighing 385 gms, which was found in his possession during a baggage examination. The Tribunal considered whether the passenger had the opportunity to declare the goods before they were seized and whether the seizure was justified under the Customs law. The applicant questioned the validity of the seizure and the lack of declaration for the gold jewellery.Issue 3: Opportunity for re-export of gold jewelleryAnother issue raised was whether the passenger should have been given the opportunity to re-export the gold jewellery instead of facing confiscation. The Tribunal examined the circumstances of the case, including the passenger's statement about being approached to carry the goods for a reward. The applicant contended that he should have been allowed to re-export the goods, citing legal provisions under the Customs Act. The Tribunal considered the legal implications of re-export in such cases.Issue 4: Denial of baggage allowance and confiscation of goodsThe Tribunal reviewed the denial of baggage allowance to the passenger and the confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 4,417. The applicant challenged the denial of baggage allowance and the confiscation of goods, arguing that the actions were not justified. The Tribunal analyzed the facts and circumstances surrounding the seizure and confiscation of the goods to determine the legality and justification of the actions taken by the Customs authorities.Issue 5: Validity of penalty imposedLastly, the Tribunal examined the validity of the penalty of Rs. 20,000 imposed on the applicant. The applicant questioned the legality and validity of the penalty, seeking clarification on the basis for such a significant penalty. The Tribunal considered whether the penalty was justified based on the findings and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal's decision on the penalty was a crucial aspect of the judgment, determining the financial liability of the applicant in addition to the confiscation of goods.