Customs authorities rightfully confiscated undeclared gold bangles from passengers using Green Channel without proper declaration forms

The HC dismissed a petition challenging confiscation of gold bangles by customs authorities. Petitioners, who passed through Green Channel at airport without declaring gold bangles or filing required International Customs Declaration Form, were found ineligible to import gold under Foreign Trade Act provisions. The court held that wearing bangles did not exempt statutory declaration requirements under Section 77 of Customs Act. Since petitioners voluntarily accepted redemption option, paid fines and customs duty to retrieve bangles, they could not subsequently challenge the confiscation order. The court found no illegality in decisions by adjudicating authority, Commissioner of Appeals, and CESTAT upholding the confiscation.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Order-in-Original No. 108/2014-Adjn. Cus (ADC), dated 30.12.2014.
2. Legality of the order of the Appellate Authority dated 26.03.2018 and consequential orders.
3. Whether the petitioners' actions constituted smuggling under the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Validity of the imposition of customs duty, fine, and penalty on the petitioners.

Summary:

Issue 1: Legality of the Order-in-Original No. 108/2014-Adjn. Cus (ADC), dated 30.12.2014
The petitioners, who returned from the USA with five gold bangles worth Rs. 8,50,185/-, were found to have not declared the gold, which exceeded the permissible limit under the Foreign Trade Policy. The Adjudicating Authority ordered confiscation under \u/s\ 111(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, but allowed redemption upon payment of fine and penalty under \u/s\ 112(a)(ii) and \u/s\ 114(AA) and also provided an option to re-export the gold bangles.

Issue 2: Legality of the order of the Appellate Authority dated 26.03.2018 and consequential orders
The Appellate Authority dismissed the petitioners' appeal and partly allowed the respondent-Department's appeal by modifying the Order-in-Original to impose customs duty at 35% plus cess on the gold. This order was affirmed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 01.04.2019.

Issue 3: Whether the petitioners' actions constituted smuggling under the Customs Act, 1962
The petitioners argued there was no mens rea to smuggle as the bangles were worn visibly. However, the Court noted that non-declaration and exceeding the permissible limit constituted smuggling under \u/s\ 2(39) of the Customs Act. The gold bangles, being pure gold with 99.9 purity, were not considered personal jewellery, thus falling under restricted items as per the Foreign Trade Policy.

Issue 4: Validity of the imposition of customs duty, fine, and penalty on the petitioners
The Court held that the petitioners' failure to declare the gold and their attempt to use the green channel without filing an International Customs Declaration Form violated \u/s\ 77 of the Customs Act. The adjudicating authority's imposition of customs duty, fine, and penalty was justified. The petitioners' option to re-export did not exempt them from these liabilities.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, finding no illegality or perversity in the orders of the Adjudicating Authority, the Appellate Authority, and the CESTAT. The petitioners' actions were deemed to constitute smuggling, and the penalties imposed were upheld.

---