AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1539
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the seized gold bar of the Petitioner, which was allegedly seized by the Respondent on 19th July, 2023. 3. The case of the Petitioner is that he had arrived at Terminal-3, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi from Saudi Arabia on 19th July, 2023. Further, he was intercepted by the officials from the Department of Customs and a Gold Bar weighing 250 gms was seized by the Customs Authority. According to the Petitioner, his statement was recorded on the same day. However, no Show Cause Notice (hereinafter 'SCN') has been issued. Hence, he prays for the release of his goods i.e, the Gold Bar. 4. On 27th February, 2025, notice was issued in this Writ Petition and it was directed that if the gold bar has not been disposed of, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h October, 2025 reads as under: "9.2 The remarks on Detention Receipt, Passenger's submissions/ admissions made in the statement dated 19.07.2023 indicate and establish without any iota of doubt that the Passenger had crossed the Green Channel, without declaring the Goods in possession to the Customs Officer and the Pax's intention was to smuggle the said goods. As per Circular No. 41/2000-Customs dated 12.05.2000, the norms for screening of Passenger Baggage, who walk through the "Green channel" have been prescribed, but the Pax attempted to misuse the facility. However, on the basis of the profiling of passengers, the Pax was diverted for screening of his baggage followed by DFMD, which resulted in recovery of detained goods from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case, the Petitioner had imported the gold bar and has crossed through the Green Channel without declaring the same. Accordingly, in the opinion of this Court, the gold bar of the Petitioner is not a personal effect in terms of the Baggage Rules, 2016." In the instant case, the detained gold items are "01 gold bar engraved SUISSE having purity 999 weighing 250 grams valued at Rs. 1373687.50/-" which is found to be over and above the prescribed value cap of baggage allowance as prescribed under the rule, ibid and thus needs to be considered to be 'prohibited goods" and not allowed to be imported or brought as baggage by the Pax. The Pax has claimed the ownership of the detained goods and stated that the goods belong to her as per h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be removed from the Customs Area without payment of duty by the Pax. Under these circumstances, the gold items were correctly confiscated and I uphold the confiscation under Section 111(d), 111(i), 1110, 111(l), 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. 9.5.3 To decide whether such redemption is to be granted, I observe that Section 11(1) of the Customs Act 1962 vests the power to prohibit importation or exportation of any goods by issuing a notification in this regard. The criteria/ purpose for the same are also detailed under Section 11(2)(a) to Section 11(2)(v) (as amended). I observe that in the instant case the recovered item is 01 gold bar engraved SUISSE having purity 999 weighing 250 grams valued at Rs. 1373687.50/-, and the pax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt in the Writ Petition, proper opportunity was granted to the Petitioner for being heard. 12. According to the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, Section 110(2) Customs Act, 1962, has not been followed. It is for this reason that the Court had initially entertained the present writ and had given an opportunity to the Petitioner to appear before the Adjudicating Authority and to make all his submissions therein. 13. In addition, the Petitioner has also filed a written submission before the Customs Authorities. In the said written submission, there is no justification whatsoever for the Petitioner having crossed through the green channel. The conduct of the Petitioner has not been explained by the Petitioner in any manner whatsoever. Fin....