AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 605
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Since the facts of the cases are identical and the impugned order, though passed separately, both dated 24/11/2013, both the appeals are being taken up together for discussion and disposal. 2. Details of both the appeals are hereunder: Appeal No. OIA OIO Decision Penalty C/21256/2018 No. COC-CUSTM-000-APP-017-14-15 dated 02/04/2014 No.327/2013 dt. 24/11/2013 Absolute confiscation of 159.42 grams of gold Rs.10,000/- C/21257/2018 No. COC-CUSTM-000-APP-018-14-15 dated 02/04/2014 No.348/2013 dt. 24/11/2013 Absolute confiscation of 231.35 grams of gold Rs.6000/- 3. Briefly the facts of the present case are that both the appellants are Srilankan nationals. They arrived at Kochi International Airports on various dates from Colombo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Kirthucase Mary Thawamani and gold chain weighing 75.35 grams and bangles weighing 156.00 grams valued at Rs. 6,55,877/- seized from Smt. Pabitha Thillainathan and imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) & (b) of the Customs Act are not sustainable in law and the same have been passed without appreciating the case law and the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that admittedly the appellants are foreign nationals from Sri Lanka and they were wearing the gold ornaments and have not concealed the same. He further submitted that the Commissioner in the impugned orders has recorded contradictory facts. He pointed out that the Commissioner has observed in his order that the appellants were possessing ornaments made of crude gol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....import procedure and the appellants have not declared the jewelry they were wearing, before the Customs Department. 7. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of the material on record, I find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Vigneswaran Sethuraman cited supra wherein the Hon'ble High Court has discussed in detail regarding the declaration to be made by foreign tourist entering into India and the various provisions of the Customs Act relating to seizure of such goods. After elaborately discussing various procedures, the Hon'ble High Court in paragraphs 15 & 16 has observed as under:- 15.Section 77 of the Act stipulates that the owner of any baggage shall for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... transit of baggage from one customs station to another or to a place outside India. Going by the stipulations in Sections 77, 80 and 81 of the Act, I am persuaded to take the view that the provisions therein can have no application to the instant case where the petitioner, a tourist coming from Sri Lanka had on his person a gold chain which he was wearing and was not kept concealed in his body. Such being the situation, clauses (l) and (m) of Section 111 of the Act can have no application. 16.That takes me to the question whether the petitioner had imported or attempted to import or brought to Indian Customs Waters for the purpose of being imported, gold ornaments, contrary to any prohibition imposed by the Act or any other law, so as to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rriving in India cannot wear gold ornaments on his/her person in view of an express provision of law in that regard (such a statutory provision was not brought to my notice and it is not referred to in Ext. P3 order), the respondents should have informed the petitioner that he cannot wear it for the reason that the import of it is prohibited and given him the option of having the goods detained for the purpose of being returned to him on his leaving India as contemplated in Section 80 of the Act. The respondents have not stated in Ext. P3 that such an option was extended to him and therefore for that reason also, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8. Further I find that the Department's review petition before the Division Bench....