TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s passed on 24.07.2011. The reason given for confiscating the gold chains from the person of the petitioner reads as under:- The person is an Indian National. He has brought the above said 32 Nos of gold chains and attempted to pass through green channel without declaring to customs. He has admitted in his stated that the gold was given to him by somebody in Singapore for handling over to an unknown person in Chennai for a monetary benefit of Rs. 3,000/-. His stay abroad is more than six months, hence he is eligible for concessional rate of duty as per the notification No.31/2003 dated 01.03.2003 as amended. However, the person was not in possession of sufficient foreign currency for payment of duty. As the person has not declared the gold, the same is liable to confiscation under Section 111(l) and (m) and the person is liable to penal action under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. The findings of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Airport) reads as under:- "Person did not declare the goods. Did not have foreign currency to pay duty. Since intention was to evade duty, goods liable for confiscation." 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of penalty and redemption fine cannot be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case as petitioner was employed in Singapore and was having a work permit and had returned to India after a period of 22 months. 13. It is further submitted that since the petitioner was eligible for the benefit of the above notification as he had stayed for more than six months, upholding i9redemption fine of Rs. 1,55,000/- and penalty of Rs. 19,000/- was not proper. 14. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents submitted that the petitioner had failed to declare 32 gold chains which he was carrying in person before the customs authorities and therefore Section 111 (l) and (m) were attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. It was further submitted that under Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962, the owner of any baggage was required to make appropriate declaration before the proper officer of the Customs. 16. It was further submitted that in the present case, the petitioner had carried the gold chains in his pant pocket, but had failed to declare the same before the customs authorities which led to passing of order in original dated 24.07.2011 by the 1st respo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re allowed to be imported freely as per Baggage Rules, 1998 framed under Section 79 of the Customs Act, 1962. 27. As per the Baggage Rules, 1998 as amended in 2006, a male passenger returning to India can carry in his person/baggage only for a value of Rs. 10,000/-. Even that quantity and value has to be declared by person. 28. Under Customs Notification No.31/2003-Cus dated 01.03.2003, an eligible passenger of Indian origin is allowed to import upto 10kg of gold provided customs duty is paid in convertible foreign exchange. 29. In this case, the petitioner had failed to declare 177 grams of gold carried by him in his pant pocket and only when he was intercepted by the customs officers before he left the port, he admitted that he had carried 32 Nos. of gold chain weighing 177 grams for an unknown person to be given to an unknown person for a consideration of Rs. 3000/. 30. Statements obtained from the petitioner. He has admitted that was carrying the gold chains weighing 177 grams with him in person, which was not declared by the petitioner. Though it is the case of the petitioner that he had declared the gold jewellery and the respondents have wrongly confiscated the same, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) vide Order in Appeal No.C.Cus.No.171 of 2012 dated 20.03.2012. 35. No further appeal/ revision was filed by the respondents against the order of the 2nd respondent, even though the petitioner had not established by any documents to substantiate that 32 numbers of gold chain were purchased by him in Singapore. Therefore, the benefit of Customs Notification No.31/2003-Cus dated 01.03.2003 ought not to have been extended. 36. The petitioner has also since paid the customs duty and the penalty and redemption fine on 02.08.2012 after the 2nd respondent Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal vide Order-in-Appeal C.Cus.No.171/2012 dated 20.3.2012. 37. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) reduced the penalty by 50% from Rs. 38,000/- to Rs. 19,000/- and the redemption fine of Rs. 1,92,000/- to 1,55,000/-. 38. Both the original authority the Commissioner of Custom (Appeals) have justified the imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 without proper discussion as to under which of sub- clause of the aforesaid Section penalty was to be imposed. 39. The imported gold chains were not a prohibited item. ....