1987 (9) TMI 220 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal allows re-export of deemed crude jewelry, emphasizing compliance with customs regulations

SMT. SITA VITHALDAS THARIANI Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY

SMT. SITA VITHALDAS THARIANI Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY - 1988 (34) E.L.T. 696 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Whether the absolute confiscation of a gold chain with a locket containing a gold biscuit was justified.2. Whether the appellant should be allowed to re-export the confiscated gold chain and locket.Analysis:1. The primary issue in this case was the absolute confiscation of a gold chain with a locket containing a gold biscuit, which was declared by a non-resident Indian upon arrival. The Assistant Collector of Customs deemed the gold chain as crude jewelry and prohibited its import, leading to absolute confiscation valued at Rs. 14,520. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, stating that even though the gold chain was declared, it was not eligible for re-export under Section 80 of the Customs Act. The appellant argued that the gold chain should be considered jewelry and, even if prohibited, should be allowed for re-export. The appellant referred to a previous case where re-export was permitted despite lack of declaration. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the gold chain, though in crude form, was entitled to re-export as a true declaration had been made, overturning the lower authorities' decisions.2. The second issue revolved around whether the appellant should be permitted to re-export the confiscated gold chain and locket. The Collector contended that the chain was not jewelry but gold bullion, and the request for detention was made only after customs authorities moved to confiscate the items. The Collector argued against allowing re-export, stating that it could set a precedent for smugglers to request re-export after detention. However, the Tribunal found that the true declaration of the goods, as required by Section 80 of the Customs Act, was the crucial factor, not the immediate request for detention. The Tribunal emphasized that the purpose of Section 80 was to protect passengers who may not be familiar with customs laws. Relying on previous judgments and the provisions of the Customs Act, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the appellant to re-export the confiscated gold chain and locket.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the re-export of the gold chain and locket despite being deemed as crude jewelry and prohibited for import. The decision was based on the appellant's true declaration of the items, as required by Section 80 of the Customs Act, emphasizing the importance of protecting passengers' interests and ensuring compliance with customs regulations.