2019 (4) TMI 447

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntelligence Unit of Customs at Hyderabad International Airport intercepted the appellant-pax Smt. Elete Susheela and Shri E. Ram Reddy carrying 5 gold bangles of 99.9 purity and weighing 311 grams valued at Rs. 8,50,000/- approximately. These bangles were not declared by the appellant before the Customs and these were recovered by the Officers of AIU when the appellants were exiting the exit gate. Further investigations were carried out during which the appellant stated that the gold bangles were given to her by her daughter while she was in Chicago. It is the case of the Revenue that the appellant was, first of all, not entitled to carry the gold because they had not stayed in abroad for more than six months to become eligible passenger to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rom Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- and upholding the rest of the order. The present appeal is against this Order-in-Appeal as follows: (i) The impugned Order-in-Appeal may be set aside and an amount of Rs. 80,000/- may be refunded to the passenger. (ii) Direct the department to initiate disciplinary action against the first appellate authority. (iii) Direct the Department to initiate disciplinary action against the first appellate authority who issued the earlier order dated 29.02.2016. (iv) Take disciplinary action against the IRS Officer who have conducted the investigation. (v) The two Orders-in-Appeal are passed by two different Officers which is not correct. The main grounds on which they have appealed are as follows: (a) The bangl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... carried out them while leaving from abroad. Therefore, this argument of the appellant holds no water. 5. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, the fact is that the appellant had, as per the records, got the bangles while she arrived at Hyderabad Airport and had not declared the same to the Officers under Section 77. It is the responsibility of the passenger to make declaration which she failed. The fact that there were some blank forms signed by her which are lying in the coat pocket of her husband does not change this situation. On merits, she could have claimed that the bangles were actually taken by her out of India by producing evidence of such a declaration made before the Customs authorities while leaving the country. She ....