HC upholds denial of redemption under Sec.125 Customs Act for duty evasion by concealing gold in trolley handles
The HC upheld the denial of the opportunity for redemption under Sec.125 of the Customs Act, affirming the adjudicating officer's discretion when importation is clandestine. The petitioner concealed gold inside trolley handles, intending to evade duty, as confirmed by X-ray evidence and physical inspection. The court found no merit in the petitioner's claim of interception before declaration or in the retraction of the Sec.108 statement, which was made three weeks later without justification. The concealment and conduct defeated the petitioner's contentions, and the HC dismissed the writ petition, refusing to interfere with the impugned orders.
ISSUES:
Whether the petitioner was improperly denied the opportunity of redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, in respect of gold seized for nondeclaration.Whether concealment of imported goods justifies absolute confiscation without option for redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act.Whether a retraction of a statement given under Section 108 of the Customs Act, allegedly made under duress, affects the validity of confiscation proceedings.
RULINGS / HOLDINGS:
The court held that the discretion under Section 125 of the Customs Act to provide an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation can be denied when the adjudicating officer has justifiable reasons, including concealment of goods, to conclude there was no intention to declare the goods.Absolute confiscation of gold was upheld because the gold was found concealed inside the inner tube of the trolley bag, demonstrating an intention to avoid duty payment, thus justifying denial of redemption option.The retraction of the statement under Section 108, made three weeks after the original statement and not raised contemporaneously, was found unjustifiable and did not affect the confiscation order.
RATIONALE:
The court applied the statutory framework of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly Sections 108, 112, 114AA, and 125, and relied on precedents including Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. M/s Ambalal & Co. and M/s Om Prakash Bhatia v. Commissioner of Customs.It was emphasized that concealment of goods is a critical factor in determining the bona fides of the importer and the applicability of redemption under Section 125, consistent with the principle that "smuggled goods" are distinct from "imported goods" and do not qualify for exemption or redemption benefits.The court recognized the discretionary nature of Section 125 and deferred to the findings of the original, appellate, and revisional authorities regarding concealment and intention to evade duty, finding no grounds for interference.The rejection of the retraction was supported by the absence of contemporaneous objection and the timing of the retraction, reinforcing the reliability of the original statement under Section 108.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
