TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claring the same to the customs at red channel. Spot adjudication was conducted, on having passenger's request, for the waiver of show Cause Notice. During oral personal hearing, passenger admitted the fact that she is a carrier and brought the gold bangle 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 clearing it make a declaration of its contents to the proper officer. Further, any dutiable or prohibited goods which are not 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthority held on 10.07.2012 and adequately discusses in Order-in-Original passed by the adjudicating authority. That the fact of the passenger being a carrier has been ignored and not taken into considerations resulting in granting an unintended benefit to the smuggler passenger. 4.2 That 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 03.05.2011 and several other orders has ordered absolute confiscation in carrier cases and the said orders were upheld by commissioner (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeals No. 480/11 dated 29.07.2011, 479/2011 dated 29.7.2011 and 481/11 dated 29.07.2011. That absolute confiscation was also upheld by Government in these cases vide GOI order No 352/12 dated 28.08.2012. That 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 also upheld the absolute confiscation of goods brought by carrier passenger. 4.3 that in absolute confiscation is upheld in the judgements of Hon'ble Tribunal order No 1980/09 dated 24.12.2009, in the case of G.V Ramesh and others vs CC Air Chennai 2010 (252) ELT 02....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the absolute confiscation by stating that the non-declaration which entails confiscation under Section 111(I) should be conscious and intentional 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 bangles 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 of the owner is not known the person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized. That the legislature has Cleary stated to give option to redeem the goods either or owner or the person whom the goods seized in lieu of confiscation. That nowhere in that Act mentioned that the goods should be absolutely confiscated if the goods brought by other than the owner. That no statement und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n contention of the applicant is that 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 or re-export as she is a Sri Lankan passport holder. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the request for redemption under Section 125 ibid and re-export under Section 80 ibid holding that the respondent had attempted to smuggle the gold bangles in contravention of Section 77 but it 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 applicant it is once again claimed that the bangles were personal effects covered under "Appendix E" of Rule 7 of Baggage Rules and can be cleared of duty on the condition of re-export. 11. Government notes that in the impugned Order-in-Original the record of personal hearing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kash 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 assessee did not fulfull 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 reposted 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 application of Rules in certain cases) Order 1993/as it will apply to the passenger of Indian Origin - attempt to smuggle 10 gold bars with Foreign markings wrapped in carbon by concealing in baggage justifies the order of absolute confiscation." 12.3 Government also notes that Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in its judgment dated 23.07.2009 in the case of UOI vs. Mohammed aijaj Ahmed (WP No. 1901/2003) reported as 2009 (244) ELT 49(Bom.) has set aside the order of CESTAT order....