TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 32
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase in brief as in the Order-in-Original impugned before us as under : On 20/12/2013, three passengers, appellants herein, namely Shri Zainuddin, Shri Chokkalingam Muruganandam and Shri Haji Mohamed were intercepted at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad at the exit gate when they arrived from Singapore and had passed through the green channel. The disembarkation slips of the passengers were verified and it was found that column No. 6, in which the passengers are required to declare total value of the goods they carry, was blank. Thereafter search of the passengers was conducted and from each of the appellant, six gold bars weighing 01 Kg. each were recovered. According to the Order-in-Original, the gold bars were found concealed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hoes or pants were seized from the appellants; further they were intercepted even before they had an opportunity to declare the gold; they had sufficient money to pay all the duty; the seizure was effected in the Customs hall and therefore, import was not complete at all; since they had not crossed the Customs barrier, there was no offence committed; it is preemptive seizure and the appellants relied upon case law holding that seizure cannot be effected before the goods cross the Customs barrier. It was submitted that the appellants parents were citizens of India and therefore, all the appellants were persons of Indian origin according to the Notification No. 12/2012-Customs dated 17.3.2012 to bring the gold; they were mislead by website an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... after they crossed the green channel. Therefore, the claim of the appellants that they have not crossed the Customs barriers is not at all correct. He also submits that even if it was accepted that the passengers are of Indian origin, yet, total quantity brought by them is much more than the admissible quantity and therefore confiscation is in order. When there is specific bar for importation of gold of not more than 01 Kg, the gold becomes prohibited items and therefore is liable to absolute confiscation. Accordingly, the claim of the appellants that the gold has to be allowed to be re-exported on payment of fine is contrary to the legal position. In view of the above, the impugned order has to be sustained. 5. We have considered the sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of fine is not correct legal position. The decision of the Commissioner of Customs (AIR) Chennai-I Vs. Samynathan Murugesan [2009 (247) E.L.T. 21] is appropriate. In this decision, the Honble High Court held as follows :- "Confiscation - Absolute confiscation of goods - 7.075 kgs Gold ornaments recovered from T.V. Set - Goods were prohibited as petitioner did not belong to category of persons who could bring gold at concessional rate of duty - Previous periods where petitioner stayed for longer duration, not relevant for the purpose of Notification No. 31/2003-Cus. - Liberalisation policy and repeal of Gold Control order weighed with the Tribunal - Tribunal ought to have considered whether he could have carried the gold as part of his b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d and is liable to confiscation. Once it is considered as prohibited goods, absolute confiscation would be in order. In the case of Sheikh Mohammed Omar Vs. Collector [1983 (13) E.L.T. 439 (S.C.)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held "Any prohibition in Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 means every an all types of prohibition, whether complete or partial, it includes restriction which is one type of prohibition." This judgement was reaffirmed in the case of Om Prakash Bhatia Vs. Commissioner [2003 (155) E.L.T. 423 (S.C.)]. In the case of Garg Wollen Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Addl. Collector of Customs New Delhi [1998 (104) E.L.T. 306], the Honble Supreme Court held that absolute confiscation of goods is justified when it is not a fit case to ....