TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 9
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....waiver of Show Cause Notice. During oral personal hearing, passenger admitted the fact that she is a carrier and brought the gold bangle o on behalf of someone else for some monetary gains. 2.1 In terms of Section 77 of the customs Act, 1962, the owner of any baggage shall for the purpose of Dearing it makes a declaration of its contest to the proper officer. Further, any dutiable or prohibited goods which are no included or are in excess of those included in the declaration made under Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962 or any goods which do not correspond in respect of the value or in any other particular with the declaration made under Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962, shall be liable for confiscation under Section 111(I) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, in terms of Para 2.20 of chapter 2 of the foreign Trade Policy 2009- 14, bonafide household goods and personal effects may be imported as part of passenger baggage as per limits, terms and conditions thereof specified in the Baggage Rules, 1998. Further, all dutiable articles imported by a passenger or a member of a crew in his/her baggage under heading 9803 are restricted as per the ITC-HS 2011-12 read with Rule(1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-in- passed by the adjudicating authority. This fact of the passenger being a carrier has been ignored and not taken into consideration resulting in granting an unintended benefit to the smuggler passenger. 4.2 The adjudication authority at Chennai Airport in its Order-in-Original No. 343/2012 dated 30/06/2011, 32/10 dated 03/05/2012,33/10 dated.3/5/2011 and several other orders has ordered absolute confiscation in carrier cases. The said orders were upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeals No 480/11 dated 29/7/2011, 479/2011 dated29/7/2011 and 481/11 dated 29/7/2011. Finally, the absolute confiscation was also upheld by government in these cases vide GOI order No 354/12 Dated 28/8/2012. Similarly, Government in its Revision order no 401-406/12-CUS dated 11.10.2012 and 407-409/12-CUS dated 12.10.2012 pertaining to Chennai cases has upheld the absolute confiscation of gods brought by carrier passenger. 4.3 Absolute confiscation in such cases is upheld in the judgements of Hon'ble Tribunal order No 1980/09 dated 24/12/09, in the case of G.V Ramesh and others Vs CC Air Chennai 2010 (252) ELT 0212 (T-Mad). 4.4 Hon'ble high court of Bombay in the case of UOI Vs Mohamed Ah....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ils confiscation under Section 111(1) should be conscious and international non-declaration and would not take within its ambit more unintentional omission such as not declaring the ornaments worn on the person which are not at all concealed but are visible to the naked eye. That in this case the respondent was wearing the gold bangle in her hand. That it is not denied by the applicant. That there is no declaration required but the original authority had imposed redemption fine and penalty but the Commissioner (Appeals) had applied his mind and passed the order legally and properly. 5.8 That Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 is very much clear that the goods confiscated can be allowed to be redeemed by the owner or the owner is not known the person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized. That the legislature has clearly stated to give option to redeem the goods either to owner or the person whom the goods seized in lieu of confiscation. That nowhere that Act says the goods should be absolutely confiscated if the goods brought by other than the owner. That no statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was recorded to prove their version. That the respon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....40,000/- and reduced the penalty to Rs. 10,000/- Aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the Department has filed the Revision Application on grounds in the para 4. 9. Government observes that the main contention of the Department in hat the fact that respondent is a carrier has been ignored by the Commissioner (Appeals) who has allowed the unintended benefit of re-export to a carrier. It is therefore, pleaded that absolute confiscation ordered and penalty imposed by original authority be upheld. 10. Government further observes that before the commissioner (Appeals) the respondent claimed she is not a carrier and gold is not a prohibited item and requested for re-export as she is a Sri Lankan passport holder. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the request for redemption under Section 125 ibid and re-exports under Section 80 ibid holding that the respondent had attempted to smuggle the gold bangle in contravention of Section 77 but is was not concealed in any ingenious manner and is a Sri Lankan passport holder with no offence registered previously. In the counter to the Revision Application filed by the Department it is once again claimed that the bangle was personal effects ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch cases upheld in the judgements of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Cc Air, Chennai Vs. Samynathan Murugeshan 2009 (247) ELT 21 (Mad.) The said order was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order dated 11.02.2010 reported as 2010 (254) ELT A015 (S.L) dismissing the petition for special leave to Appeal (civil) No. 22072 of 2009 filed by Samyanathan Murugesan. supreme Court passed the following order:- "Applying the ratio of the judgment in the case of Om Prakash Bhatia Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi reported in 2003 (155) ELT 423 (S.C) 2003(6) Section 161 to the facts of the case/we find that; in the present case/the assesse did not fulfil the basic eligibility criteria, which makes the imported item a prohibited goods; hence/we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed." 12.2 Hon'ble High Court of Madras in their judgment dated 02.03.2012 in WP No. 21086/2002 in the case of Aiyakannu Vs. JC customs reported on 2012-110L-806-HC-MAD-Cus has also held as under:- "Petitioner being a foreign (Sri Lankan) national is not entitled to import gold in terms of clause 3 of foreign Trade (Exemption from appl....