TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (2) TMI 217
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ong with the gold chains. Immediately, on his arrival he had declared before the Airport Customs Officers about the possession of the gold chains. However, without accepting the declaration made by the petitioner they had taken his passport and they had threatened that he would be arrested it he did not sign the statement written by the customs officers. Thereafter, he was allowed to leave the airport. 3. It has been further stated that, in spite of the repeated requests made by the petitioner, for the release of the gold jewels and to return his passport, the Superintendent of Air Intelligence unit had issued summons to the petitioner to appear before him, on 9-9-2010. The petitioner had appeared before the Superintendent of Air in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is eligible to bring upto 10 kilograms of gold. He had also submitted that gold is not a restricted item. The duty that is to be paid is at the rate of Rs. 250/- for every 10 gms of gold imported into India, as per Notification No. 31/2003-Customs, dated 1-3-2003, issued under Chapter 71 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 6. The learned counsel had also submitted that the seizure of the goods could be done, under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, if the officer concerned has reason to believe that such goods are liable to be confiscated, as per the procedures prescribed thereunder. Provisional release of the goods seized under Section 110 may be released to the owner, pending the adjudication proceedings, on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en held that, as per the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, if the goods are 'prohibited' the option to confiscate, without giving an option to the assessee to pay the fine in lieu thereof, is with the customs authorities. However, when the goods are not prohibited' then the customs authorities have no option but to allow the assessee to pay the fine, in lieu of the confiscation. 9. The learned counsel had also relied on the decision of the Bombay Tribunal, made in Yakub Ibrahim Yusuf v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - 2011 (263) E.L.T. 685 (Tri.-Mumbai), wherein it had been held that if the owner of the goods is not known, the option of redemption has to be given to a person from whose possession the goods in que....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962. As such, the gold jewellery was liable for confiscation, under Section 111 of the said Act. The petitioner was also liable for penal action, under Section 112 of the said Act. As the petitioner is not the owner of the gold jewellery seized by the respondent he is not entitled for the return of the same, as per the decision of the Chennai Bench, made in G.V. Ramesh v. Commissioner of Customs [2010 (252) E.L.T. 212 (Tri. - Chennai)]. 12. It has also been stated that a show cause notice, dated 27-1-2011, had been issued to the petitioner, and based on which adjudication proceedings would be held and proper orders would be passed, as per law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with the intention of evading payment of customs duty, no proper grounds have been made out for their refusal to release the gold jewellery, on payment of the customs duty. 15. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is entitled to import upto 10 Kilograms of gold, as it is an admitted fact that he had been living abroad for more than six months. It is also noted that gold is not a prohibited item. Further, an option is available to a person, who is the owner of the goods, or where such owner is not known, the person from whose possession or custody such goods had been seized, to pay fine, in lieu of confiscation, under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. In such circumstances, there is nothing shown on behalf of the respondents ....