TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 3
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on was warranted for the two Gold Bars/Biscuits recovered from each of the respondents weighting 111 gms approximately each, which was not declared to the Customs and found while respondents were walking out through green channel. 3. The brief facts are that the respondents arrived at Lucknow Airport from Saudi Arabia on 19/01/14. Both the respondents were having an Indian passport and were passing through green channel were intercepted by Customs and on the disembarkation card handed over by them, no dutiable goods were mentioned. On suspicion, the baggage of the respondents/passengers were taken for the X-Ray, scanning, in which no dutiable goods were found. Thereafter, during process of frisking, while checking the wallets, two gold bar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at Lucknow Airport for which Shri Imtiyaz Idris arranged Air ticket. Further, he does not know the address of Shri Imtiyaz Idris. The other respondent in response to summons, also appeared on 27/06/14 and a statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 wherein he stated that two gold bars/biscuits weighting 10 Tolas each recovered from him were given by Shri Imtiyaz Idris besides that he knew nothing. Pursuant to enquiry, show cause notice was issued as to why the goods be not confiscated and held liable for confiscation under Section 111 (i), (l) and (m) of the Customs Act, along with confiscation of the two black color leather like material purse/wallet consisting white paper wrapped with cello tape used as concealing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the fact that he had never faced such a situation. The respondent was working in Saudi Arabia since the year 2012 and was returning after 14 months of stay. He had purchased the gold biscuits with relevant receipt through Mr. Walliullah. He was not a carrier for the said Mr. Wali. Further, as he was intercepted from the embarkation hall, at the time of fetching his luggage from conveyor belt, the time for the filing of declaration to the Customs officer, had not come. Since he was working in Saudi Arabia, he had requisite amount to purchase the gold biscuits and had the receipts, which have been seized. The respondent would have definitely paid Customs duty leviable thereon, at the post of Customs officer but was intercepted before the occa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms Officer at the conveyer belt. It was further found that the respondents have returned to India after staying abroad for more than one year and hence, they were eligible for bringing gold up to 1 Kg. Further, it is admitted fact that they have imported two gold bars/biscuits each weighting about 116 gm each or 232 gms approximately, by each of the respondents. It was further found that the quantity of gold imported by the respondents, cannot be termed as commercial quantity and further the gold/goods being carried by them, are otherwise permissible for import subject to declaration as per the baggage Rules, 1998. As such it was held, they have violated the para of 2.20 of Foreign Trade Policy-(2009-14) read with clause 3(1)(h) of Foreign ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and hence would fall under the category of prohibited goods and thus, is liable for absolute confiscation. The order-in-original is self contradictory to the extent that at one place it holds that that eligibility criteria of an eligible passenger is not satisfied while, at the other place, it is held that such eligibility criteria is satisfied. Further the adjudicating authority has over looked facts that the gold had been concealed and was not declared and hence, the same was liable to be confiscated absolutely as there was an attempt to smuggle into India. Further, the redemption option was given to the respondents, though the actual owner of the goods, i. e. Shri Imtiyaz Idris(in Riyadh), who is known and the same is in contravention of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erned, it was observed that the same was discretionary and cannot exceed the duty sought, to be evaded and thus, the penalty imposed of Rs. 1,30,000/- each was held to be proper and sustainable. 9. The learned A.R. for revenue have taken me through, the facts and circumstances of the appeals and relying on the ground of appeal, stated in the case of goods smuggled, warrant absolute confiscation in absence of proper declaration under Section 77 of the Act. It is further stated that under the Baggage Rules, 1998, import of gold is allowed to a bona-fide passengers, in permissible quantity at prescribed rate of duty. In the present case, the facts indicate that the respondents were carriers of gold and attempted to smuggle the same and thus, ....