Gold imported violating DGFT notification and RBI restrictions constitutes prohibited goods liable for absolute confiscation under Section 111(d)

CESTAT NEW DELHI dismissed the appeal regarding smuggling of gold bars. The tribunal held that gold imported in violation of DGFT notification conditions and RBI restrictions constitutes prohibited goods under Section 2(33) of Customs Act 1962, falling within the definition of smuggling under Section 2(39). The seized gold bars were liable for absolute confiscation under Section 111(d). The appellant, having knowingly dealt with goods liable to confiscation, was subject to penalties under Section 112(b) and Section 114AA for non-declaration. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) order dated 11.02.2022 was upheld.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether the imported gold bars concealed in passenger baggage, not declared at arrival and delivered pursuant to instructions from another, constitute "prohibited goods" and "smuggling" under the Customs Act, 1962, thereby attracting absolute confiscation under Section 111(d).

2. Whether the appellant's statements, statements of co-accused and corroborative material (travel records, call details, invoices, cash debit note, NOC, entry permit) suffice to establish knowledge and active involvement making the appellant liable to penalties under Sections 112(b) and 114AA.

3. Whether the option to redeem confiscated goods under Section 125 is available where conditions and restrictions governing import (DGFT/RBI/Foreign Trade Policy) were violated and the goods are treated as prohibited.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Classification of the imported gold as "prohibited goods" and liability to absolute confiscation under Section 111(d)

Legal framework: Section 2(33) defines "prohibited goods" as goods whose import is subject to prohibition under the Act or other law. Section 2(39) defines "smuggling" as acts/omissions rendering goods liable to confiscation under Section 111. Section 111(d) permits confiscation where goods are imported in contravention of any law or restriction.

Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal relied on an earlier decision holding that violation of DGFT/RBI import conditions converts gold into "prohibited goods" falling within Section 2(33) and thus constituting smuggling under Section 2(39).

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined contemporaneous documentary and testimonial material (sale invoice, cash debit note, NOC, entry permit, travel documents, call details) and voluntary statements recorded under Section 108. The appellant admitted failing to declare the baggage and acting on instructions to procure and deliver gold bars. The Court treated carriage of five 1 kg gold bars in passenger baggage without declaration and with concealment as inconsistent with statutory/customs/Foreign Trade Policy conditions, invoking the statutory definitions. The established modus operandi (avoiding Red Channel, delivery for others, hawala routing of funds) reinforced that the import contravened regulatory conditions and therefore fell within the statutory prohibition/smuggling schema.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where goods imported in deliberate contravention of import conditions and concealment are shown, such goods qualify as "prohibited goods" under Section 2(33), constitute "smuggling" under Section 2(39), and are liable to absolute confiscation under Section 111(d). Obiter - contextual observations about common modus operandi and hawala routing as typical corroborative facts for smuggling cases.

Conclusion: The imported gold bars are properly treated as prohibited and smuggled goods and liable to absolute confiscation under Section 111(d).

Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence to establish knowledge and culpable involvement attracting Sections 112(b) and 114AA penalties

Legal framework: Section 112(b) penalizes persons who knowingly deal with goods liable to confiscation; Section 114AA penalizes failure to declare dutiable goods as required.

Precedent Treatment: The decision follows established principles that admissions, corroborative documentary evidence and third-party statements can establish knowledge and complicity.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court placed weight on voluntary statements recorded under Section 108 by the appellant and co-accused admitting instructions and roles, corroborated by travel agent records, call detail records, invoices, cash debit notes and seized documents found on the appellant at arrival. The combination of admission of non-declaration, evidence of travel and logistical support from an orchestrator, and documentary links to the intended recipients and hawala funding, permitted an inference of knowledge and active participation rather than innocent carriage. The failure to use the Red Channel and concealment were treated as indicia of knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - corroborated admissions together with documentary evidence and conduct (concealment/non-declaration) suffice to establish knowledge and render the carrier liable under Sections 112(b) and 114AA. Obiter - remarks on typical indicators of orchestration and hawala funding as supporting evidence.

Conclusion: The material on record adequately established that the appellant knowingly concerned himself with confiscation-liable goods and failed to declare them, justifying penalties under Sections 112(b) and 114AA.

Issue 3: Availability of redemption under Section 125 where import conditions are violated

Legal framework: Section 125 allows redemption of seized goods on payment of redemption fine where law permits; applicability depends on whether goods are liable to absolute confiscation under Section 111.

Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal relied on prior authority holding that violation of import conditions converts the goods into prohibited goods and precludes redemption in lieu of absolute confiscation.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court construed the statutory scheme to conclude that when goods meet the statutory criteria for absolute confiscation (e.g., imported in contravention of prohibitory conditions or by smuggling), the discretionary relief of redemption is not appropriate. Because the imported gold here breached applicable import conditions (DGFT/RBI/Foreign Trade Policy) and was smuggled, it falls within Section 111(d) absolute confiscation. The appellant's contention for redemption was therefore rejected as inconsistent with the statutory classification and admitted facts.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where goods are rendered "prohibited" by breach of import conditions and are liable to absolute confiscation under Section 111, redemption under Section 125 is not available. Obiter - none material beyond application of statutory text to the facts.

Conclusion: Redemption under Section 125 is not permissible; absolute confiscation under Section 111(d) stands.

Cross-References and Concluding Determinations

1. The issues of classification as prohibited goods, proof of knowledge/complicity, and availability of redemption are interlinked: the established smuggling and contravention of import conditions inform both confiscation and penalty outcomes (see Issue 1 and Issue 2).

2. The Court affirmed the appellate authority's findings and dismissed the appeal, concluding that confiscation under Section 111(d) and penalties under Sections 112(b) and 114AA were correctly imposed.

---