2018 (4) TMI 1649

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 270 gms. valued at Rs. 6,87,35/- (sic) on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 3,50,000/- and personal penalty of Rs. 68,000/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Mrs. Anjali Dechsakphan on arrival from Bangkok was intercepted at the exit of IGI Airport on 9-4-2014 and 5 gold bangles worn by her were recovered from her. The Additional Commissioner of Customs confiscated the gold items absolutely and personal penalty of Rs. 68,000/- was imposed on her vide his Order dated 23-4-2014. However, on an appeal of Mrs. Anjali Dechsakphan, the Commissioner (Appeals), vide above mentioned OIA, has modified the OIO by allowing Mrs. Anjali Dechsakphan to re-export the confiscated gold on payment of fine of Rs. 3,50,000/- and penalty of Rs. 6....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not be denied that the gold articles were brought by the respondent from Thailand on her body as passenger and, therefore, these goods were brought as baggage only. The respondent has misconstrued the scope of "baggage" as suitcase, bags or containers only in a narrow sense. Whereas the scope of baggage in the context of Chapter XI of the Customs Act, 1962, is much wider so as to cover all the goods carried by a person as a passenger irrespective of whether the goods are stuffed in a bag or in a body or worn on the body. If the goods worn on the body are kept outside the ambit of the term "baggage" as envisaged in Sections 77, 78 and 79 of Customs Act etc. as claimed by the respondent such goods will be regarded as cargo and all the provisi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e-export of goods under Section 80 can be allowed only in respect of a baggage. Thus by claiming that the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly allowed the applicant to re-export the gold articles, the applicant has clearly accepted before the Government that it is a baggage matter and not cargo. The above referred Kerala High Court's decision is not applicable here because of above discussed divergent facts. 6. Coming to the issue whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an error by allowing re-export of gold articles under Section 80 of Customs Act, the Government does not find the Revenue's case convincing as the respondent is undoubtedly a foreign national and the gold bangles brought by her are commonly used by the ladie....