TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1010
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same. 2. The petitioner submitted that he was taken to one room, where the officers asked the petitioner to sign in the typed paper. The petitioner refused to sign the same. Thereafter, due to threat and coercion, the petitioner signed in the typed letter, dated 07.11.2019. The petitioner is an educated person, who knows to read and write. In such circumstances, there is no necessity for the petitioner to sign in typed statement, which is prepared by the Officers. Further, he sent a retraction letter, dated 15.11.2019 giving reasons how the petitioner was forced to sign in property statement prepared by the officials. 3. The petitioner holding Overseas Citizen of India Card, which means permanent visa. The petitioner's wife is of Indian Citizen and hence, this Overseas Citizen of India card given. The petitioner running Restaurant in the name of Seeni Abubuker and having licence given by the Government of Malaysia for the past 18 years. The petitioner further submitted that he was illegally detained in Trichy Airport from 05.11.2019 at 11.30 p.m., to 07.11.2019 at 10.00 a.m. The jewelleries seized from the petitioner are his personal jewelleries purchased by him out of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authorities with fine under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 7.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. 8.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 the same has been seized. 9.Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on an order of this Court, dated 28.02.2021, made in W.P.No.1421 of 2011 [T.Elavarasan vs. The Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Anna International Terminal, Chennai and others], wherein a direction has been sought to direct the second respondent therein to release 350 grams of assorted gold jewels viz., 7 gold chains on payment of duty as applicable for the passenger staying abroad for m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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. 11. 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 provisionally attached, pending the order of the adjudicating authority, may be released to the owner or the bank account holder on taking a bond from him in the proper form with such security and conditions as the adjudicating authority may require. Thereafter, even in the case of option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation, Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 will come into play. As per Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, whenever confiscation of any goods is authorized by the Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l baggages were found abandoned due to the surprise check conducted by the DRI officials confirming smuggling activities going on by using Trichy Airport. Some of the passengers were found concealing gold in their body including rectum and later it was removed and brought out. The passengers, who were found smuggling gold articles by indigenous concealment were arrested and produced for remand. As regards the petitioner and others, who were wearing gold articles on their body were granted bail by the authorities. Further, on that day, there were four flights arrived at Trichy Airport from kuala Lumpur, Dubai, Sharjah and Singapore. The total articles recovered to the tune of 33.628 kilograms valued at Rs.12.84 crores with regard to gold alone. Further, the petitioner was arrested, who gave a statement under Section 108 of Customs Act admitting that he is only carrier of the gold articles. Further, statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act is admissible in evidence. 16.The learned Senior Standing Counsel relied on a judgment of this Court in A.Krishnamoorthy vs. Commissioner of Customs, Trichy [2022 (381) ELT 59 (Mad)] and submitted that in a similar circumstance, this Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation. The MFDs were not prohibited but restricted items for import. A harmonious reading of the statutory provisions of the Foreign Trade Act and Section 125 of the Customs Act will therefore not detract from the redemption of such restricted goods imported without authorisation upon payment of the market value. There will exist a fundamental distinction between what is prohibited and what is restricted. We therefore, find no error with the conclusion of the Tribunal affirmed by the High Court that the respondent was entitled to redemption of the consignment 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.'' 19. Further, the Delhi High Court in Vaibhav Sampat More vs. National Investigation Agency, Through its Chief Investigation Officer [supra] held that import of gold is not prohibited, but restricted subject to prescribed quantity on payment of duty. Thus, import of gold is not prohibited, but restricted subject to prescribed quantity on payment of duty. 20. Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, gives rights to the owner or from whom the goods have been seized to redeem such ....