TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (1) TMI 803
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Punjani, daughter Reema Sultan Ali Punjani and IIham Sultan Ali Punjani, who arrived from Abudhabi by Air India Flight No AI 708 and had declared their goods worth Rs. 2250/-CIF to the customs at counter No. 13. They were asked before panchas whether they carried any gold either in their baggage or on their person to which they replied in the negative. Not satisfied with that, their entire baggage was screened. Appellant and Sultan Shaban Ali Punjani were very reluctant to put lady's vanity box in the screening machine. On screening it on machine, dark patches were noticed on the screen indicating the presense of some hard metals inside the vanity bag, where as no such things were indicated on result of other baggages. Before panchas, they....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng foreign markings collectively weighed 20638.2 grams (1770 tolas) valued at Rs. 39,62,54.340 International market value and Rs. 66,04,224/- local market value. They were seized under the Panchanama, on a reasonable belief that they were smuggled into India and hence liable for confiscation under the provisions of Customs Act. Vanity bag cloths belts, underwear, bra, socks, carbon papers used to conceal the above gold bars were also seized under the Panchanama under the resonable belief that they are liable to confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act. Statement u/s l08 of the Customs Act of all the above persons were recorded. Appellant and her husband were arrested u/s 104 of Customs Act and produced before the Chief Metropoli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have thus rendered themselves liable to penal action u/s 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly show cause notice was issued on 19-1-90 to all the above 4 persons u/s 124 of Customs Act, calling upon to show cause as to why the seized gold bars should not be confiscated u/s 111(d) of Customs Act, and why penalty should not be imposed on them u/s 112 of the Customs Act. Personal hearing was held on 11-4-90, 6-7-90 and 9-8-90. Appellant appeared along with her consultant on 9-8-90. They were heard by Additional Collector of Customs (AP) Bombay. After going through the records available, and considering the contentions of consultant and reply to show cause notice filed on 14-7-90 on behalf of all the four above named persons, passed the im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... after 6 months u/s 110 of Customs Act. Appellant, as a dutiful wife, has obeyed her husband and was ignorant of law. For the purpose of safety, she had kept the metal on her body (person). Sympethetic view is called for. Out of hard earnings and savings appellant's husband purchased on the advise of his friends and relatives to get more money on sales in India, foolishly brought gold bars. He was an accountant in National Oil Company Abudhabi for the last 13 years. On his prior periodical visit regularly one or twice in a year in connection with religious festivals and family functions, and school holidays, their baggage were checked by Customs Authorities in Airport and no contraband was found. He had opened a bank account in the bank of ....