AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 340
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working in Singapore for the past 5 ½ years. He is having a valid Work Permit Card issued by the Republic of Singapore and is also having a Bank Account in Singapore and his salaries were paid by the Company through the Bank Account. The petitioner had purchased three Gold Bangles, totally weighing 150 grams in Singapore as per the invoice for the marriage in his family. After purchase of the above said gold bangles, the petitioner arrived in Trichy Airport on 01.05.2022 vide 6E35. Immediately, on his arrival, he had declared before the Trichy Airport Custom Officers about the possession of three gold bangles, totally weighing 150 grams. The Customs Officers without accepting the same, had taken the petitioner's passport and made him to wait for more than three hours on the same day in the Airport. 3. Thereafter, when the Officers enquired the petitioner about his arrival and also his stay in Singapore, the petitioner informed that he is coming back to India after a period of 5 ½ years and the above said gold bangles were purchased by him using his hard earned money in Singapore, vide the invoice furnished. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upport of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Customs vs. Atul Automations Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (365) ELT 465 (SC)], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that redemption of restricted goods without authorisation upon payment of the market value are permitted and the person carrying the goods is entitled to redemption on payment of the market price at the reassessed value by the Customs authorities with fine under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 8. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Vaibhav Sampat More vs. National Investigation Agency, Through its Chief Investigation Officer [Crl.A.No.115 of 2022, dated 03.06.2022] and submitted that import of gold is not prohibited, but restricted subject to prescribed quantity on payment of duty. 9. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon various judgments of this Court, wherein this Court consistently held that gold is not a prohibited item, but it is only a restricted item and it can be handed over to the owner or to the passenger from whom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of 2016 [Palaniappan vs. The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai and another], vide order dated 29.02.2016; in W.P.(MD)Nos.2985 and 3124 of 2018 [Tajudeen vs. The Commissioner of Customs, Trichy and others], vide order dated 21.02.2018; and in W.P.No.5148 of 2018 [Barakathnisa vs. The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai and others], vide order dated 20.04.2018, granted relief to the petitioners therein. Thus, the consistent view of the Division Bench of this Court as well as the learned Single Judges of this Court is to return the seized gold to the passenger/owner on payment of 50% of the duty. It was also further clarified that if the petitioners therein are found guilty, it is always open to the authorities to proceed further in the manner known to law. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that once the gold is seized by the proper officers under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, the petitioner is entitled to release of the gold, which are detained pending adjudication proceedings, in terms of Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962. As per Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962, any goods, documents or things seized or bank account prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly carriers and there is a person behind them in smuggling the gold bangles in a different form. Further, none of the passengers have declared that they were carrying gold jewels before the Customs Officers, which would amount to concealment. 15. The learned Senior Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner and other passengers have given statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, which are admissible in evidence. After coming out from the Airport, on the next day, i.e., on 02.05.2022, on the advice of some one, retraction statements have been given. He further submits that the retraction statements are also identical, which confirms that they are all linked by a person and on his advice, the statements have been given. Further, if the passenger had shown a bill, the Customs Officers would not have detained the gold items and after collecting appropriate customs duty from the petitioner, the gold bangles would have been handed over to him. Further, there is no declaration slip given by the petitioner for carrying on the gold items and there was no foreign currency available with him to pay the duty, which confirms that the petitioner and others are only car....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s carrying three gold bangles in his bag and not concealed the same in his baggage or on his body. Further, there is no declaration slip obtained from the petitioner and there is no specific rebuttal on the petitioner's assertion that no declaration slip is obtained from him. In fact, he was orally declared by the Customs Officers that he is carrying three gold bangles, totally weighing 150 grams for the marriage in his family, is not specifically denied. Further, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has returned from Singapore after 5 ½ years. A statement has been recorded from him on 01.05.2022, which has been immediately refuted on 02.05.2022, as could be seen from the records. The petitioner had consistently taken a stand that he has been working in Singapore and got work permit and is also having a Bank Account for crediting his salary. With his earnings, he had purchased three gold bangles. He had also produced the invoice of the gold bangles to the authorities. Further, there is no concealment of gold in a baggage or body, which prima facie, shows that there is no smuggling and at the most, it is seized for non-declaration. Added to it, adjudication proceeding....