TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 647
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om conveyor belt (consisting of four pieces of checked-in baggage bearing Air India Baggage Tag Nos. 2118140, 218141, 218142 and 218143 and one hand baggage). The passenger was questioned whether he was in possession of gold, silver or electronic goods for which he replied that he was carrying only one Sony 32" Television. Not satisfied with the reply of the passenger and also as the passenger was found to be quite nervous, the Officer brought him along with his baggage to the AIU room for detailed examination of his baggage and search of his person in the presence of the witnesses. Before commencement of examination of his baggage, the Officer once again questioned the applicant in the presence of witnesses whether he was in possession of any gold or other electronic goods for which he replied that he was not in possession of any gold and that he was carrying only one Sony 32" Television. Thereafter, the officer opened and examined the checked-in baggage of applicant one-by-one in the presence of the witnesses and in the presence of applicant. The baggage was found to contain his personal clothes, foodstuff and the following electronic goods as detailed below: S.No. Item Des....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ponding claim tags and the Customs Declaration Card were also seized under the same Mahazar for further action under Customs Act, 1962. 2.1. The applicant in his voluntary statement dated 27.09.2011 given before the Customs officers at the Anna International Airport immediately after seizure, after narrating his personal details, interalia had stated that he is a B.A. History Graduate; that he can read, write and speak Tamil and English; that he is the holder of Indian Passport No. Z1744593 dated. 17.06.2008; that he is a Real Estate Broker in Ambattu and earns Rs. 40,000/- per month; that apart from doing real estate business he also goes, to Singapore once in a month to meet his customers; that while coming back from Singapore he buys TV, Camera, Watches etc. and sells them in the local market; that this year he had gone 6 times to Singapore; that on 27.09.2011 he had arrived at the Chennai Airport from Singapore by Air India A1359 ; that he collected his baggage tagged in his name bearing baggage tag no. SQ218148, SQ 218141, SQ 218142 and SQ 218143 and was attempting to pass through the green channel wherein he was intercepted by the Customs Officer; that he then went on to n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was issued to applicant alleging therein as to why: I) The two gold bars and one gold coin totally weighing 217 grams and totally valued at Rs. 5,74,725/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Five Only) should not be confiscated under Section 111 (d), (l) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. II) the assorted electronic goods valued at Rs. 59,760/- (Rupees Fifty nine thousand seven hundred and six only) should not be confiscated under Section 111 (d), l) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Ill) The light beige 'D-CodeI trouser worn by the applicant which was used for concealing the gold should not be confiscated under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962 IV) Penalty should not be imposed on Shri Haja Moonideen Abdul Jaleel under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.7. Accordingly, the Additional Commissioner of Customs(Airport), Chennai passed the order vide Order-in-Original No. 03/2012 dated 08.02.2012 and ordered: (i) Absolute confiscation of the 2 gold bars and one gold coin totally weighing 217 grams valued at Rs. 5,74,725/- under Section 111 (d), (l) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Section 3 (3) o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he lower authority ought to have seen that the applicant had purchased the gold for his daughter's marriage and not for sale. 4.9. That the lower authority ought to have seen that the gold is not comes under prohibited goods and therefore the Section 125 of the Customs Act is attracted. That under that circumstances the absolute confiscation" is 'very harsh. 4.10. That the lower authority ought to have allow the applicant to redeem the gold and allow him to re-export the gold as it will affect the sentiments. 4.11. That the lower authority ought to have order for Re Export of gold under Section 125 of the Customs Act. 4.12. That the lower authority ought not to have imposed higher penalty of Rs. 55,000/-. 4.13. That the lower authorities ought not to have rejected the request for re-export of the goods when the applicant made true declaration to the Intelligence Officer and that no opportunity was given to him to declare before the 'proper officer. 4.14. That the lower authority ought to have seen that the applicant was not allowed to go to the allotted table to declare and under that circumstances the officer of Customs should help the passenger and g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of mind. 4.25 That the applicant has prayed to pass an order by setting aside the absolute confiscation of the gold and allow him to redeem the same under Section 125 of the Customs Act and permit him to re-export the goods valued at Rs. 5,74,725 and reduce the penalty. 5. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 15.09.15, 13.10.2015 & 04.11.2015. Nobody attended the hearing nor sought any adjournment. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records available in case file, oral & written submission and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. On perusal of records, Government observes that the officers of the Air Intelligence Unit of Customs, Chennai Airport intercepted the applicant who had arrived from Singapore by Air India Flight No. Al 359 dated 26.09.2011 while he was proceeding through the Green Channel in the Arrival Hall of the Anna International Airport after he had cleared the immigration and collected his baggage from conveyor belt. Upon search and examination of the baggage in the presence of the witnesses the checked-in baggage of applicant was found to contain his personal clothes, foodstuff and the elect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the Section 3 (3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992; release of the assorted electronic goods valued at Rs. 59,760/- on payment of appropriate duties, after deducting the baggage allowance as per the passenger's eligibility, confiscation of the light beige ID-Code' trouser worn by the applicant which was used for concealing the gold bars and coin under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed penalty of Rs. 55,000/- on the applicant under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the said Order, the applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide impugned order upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal. Now the applicant has filed this revision application on grounds mentioned in para 4 above. 8. Government observes that the applicant has contended that he was eligible for the import of gold; that the absolute confiscation of gold was not warranted as it is allowed under the EXIM Policy; that the gold be released to him on concessional rate or its re-export permitted; and that the personal penalty may be reduced. 9. As regards the applicant's contention that he was eligible to import gold, G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ain prescribed condition if the conditions are not fulfilled. Further in the case of Samyanathan Murugesan vs Commissioner reported in 2010(254) ELT A15 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the passenger did not fulfill the eligibility criteria it makes the imported gold prohibited goods. 10.2. The applicant was not eligible to import gold either in terms of Notification No. 31/2013-Cus dated 01.03.2013 nor under rule 6 of Baggage Rules ibid. He also did not declare the impugned goods that were in a substantial/commercial quantity. Hence, the same cannot be treated as bona fide baggage in terms of Section 79 of the Act ibid. The said gold is imported in violation of Foreign Trade provisions of Section 77, 79, 11 of Customs Act, 1962; para 2.20 of EXIM Policy of 2009-14 and provisions of Section 3 (3) and 11(1) of Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. The same would thus appropriately constitute goods" liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) and (l) of the Customs Act, 1962. 10.3. In view of the position explained above, Government finds no infirmity in the impugned Order-in-Appeal as far as absolute confiscation of the impugned goods is co....