TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1540
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order is common and the issue is identical, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the Officers of the Customs Air Intelligence Unit (AIU), Bangalore International Airport(BIA), Bangalore intercepted the appellants who were trying to exit hurriedly through the Customs Green Channel at the arrival hall of BIA on 12/01/2014 arousing suspicion. The appellants, both Indian nationals on enquiry by the officers informed that they had arrived from Dubai (the UAE) to Bangalore by Emirates Flight No.EK-568. The Customs Declaration Form furnished by the appellants were examined and it was found that the appellants had not declared any dutiable / prohibited goods or gold jewell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and thereby such impugned jewellery was rendered liable to confiscation under the provisions of Section 111(d), 111(i) and 111(l) of Customs Act, 1962. Further by their act of smuggling of the impugned goods without declaring the same in the customs declaration slip on their arrival, intending to evade customs duty payable thereon, the appellants-passengers have also rendered themselves liable to penalty under the provisions of Section 112(a) and 114(AA) of the Act. The original authority passed the order for absolute confiscation of the impugned jewellery under the provisions of Section 111(d), 111(i) and 111(l) and 111(m) of the customs Act, 1962 and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Section 112(a) and Rs. 50,000/- under Section 114....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....36) ELT 121 (Tri. Decision) ii. Kapson Polycoats (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, New Delhi [2002(145) ELT 89 (Tri. Del.)] iii. Kemtrode Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Bangalore [1999(105) ELT (Tri.)] iv. Sachdeva & Sons, Amrithsar Vs. CC, Bombay [1987(29) ELT 917 (Tri.)] v. Laxmi Cotton Industries Vs. UOI [2015(323) ELT 264 (Gau.)] 4.2. He further submitted that gold or gold article (jewellery) enjoy free entry into India under Export Import Policy. However, its entry into India is subject to fulfilling of certain conditions under FEMA because of which it becomes restricted as per RBI guidelines. It is his further submission that any goods, not only gold or articles of gold when assume the characteristics of smuggled, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly been smuggled by the appellants and therefore authorities have rightly confiscated the gold jewellery and have imposed penalties under Section 112(a) and Section 114AA of the Customs Act. She further submitted that the appellants in their statement have conceded that appellants have concealed the gold in order to avoid payment of customs duty. She further submitted that the appellants have not declared the value of imported goods and they were trying to pass through the green channel and they were intercepted by the Customs officers on suspicion. She also submitted that once they have conceded, there was no need to issue the show-cause notice. 5.1. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s whose import is permitted subject to restriction, which can be confiscated for violation of restrictions, but liable to be released on payment of redemption fine. The gold do not fall under the prohibited category and therefore it cannot be absolutely confiscated. Further I find that in the case of Mohd. Zia Ul Haque cited supra, the Revisionary Authority in identical circumstances has held that if the gold ornaments are brought by passenger without declaration, then the same are not liable to absolute confiscation without giving any option to redeem the same. It is further held that when the goods are not prohibited, the adjudicating officer shall give option to pay redemption fine in lieu of confiscation, as the officer thinks fit, whic....