Case Law Details
Ajay Gupta Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
Conclusion: Penalty on confiscated Gold Jewellery was not liable to be imposed as the transit passenger was not required to pass through customs barrier or check post and the source of gold jewellery he was wearing was cogently explained, which had not been found to be untrue.
Held: Assessee (travelling from Bangkok to Kathmandu) had arrived at Delhi Airport from Bangkok and was scheduled to take the next flight to Kathmandu after a few hours. He was intercepted by the officers of the Customs Intelligence Unit (CIU) in the transit area. The officers enquired whether he was carrying any dutiable goods to which assessee answered in the negative. On further enquiry assessee informed that he was wearing a silver coated – gold chain and a gold kada. For further enquiry and investigation assessee was offloaded by the officers and was brought to the customs arrival hall for his detailed examination and personal search. Assessee was again asked whether he wanted to declare any dutiable items to the Customs, to which assessee once again replied in the negative. To ascertain the genuineness and purity of the silver coated gold jewellery, jewellery appraiser was called by the Officers. It appeared to revenue that assessee had failed to produce any documentary evidence or otherwise for unlawful possession/import of the gold jewellery. Further, the quantity appeared to be commercial and it further appeared that assessee was attempting to illegally import, being a non-eligible passenger in terms of Notification No. 12/2012–Cus. Further, the money which was withdrawn through ATM in Dubai, seem to have been used for financing or purchase of the recovered gold jewellery. Accordingly, the jewellery was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act. Further, penalty was proposed on the assessee under Section 112 and 114 AA of the Customs Act. It was held that assessee was a passenger in transit from Bangkok to Kathmandu. Assessee was admittedly found in the transit lounge at Delhi Airport, meant for international passengers, where they could wait for the purpose of changing flight without entering into India, as such they were not required to go though any formality of immigration as well as under the provision of Customs Law. It was admitted fact that assessee was waiting for his next flight in the transit lounge of Delhi, and he was not intermixing with any other person or trying to deliver any goods or any packet or jewellery for the purpose of smuggling. Assessee had not violated any of the provisions under the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Foreign Trade Policy. The source of gold jewellery he was wearing was cogently explained, which had not been found to be untrue. The impugned order and penalty imposed was set aside.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
This appeal is filed against order of absolute confiscation of gold jewellery weighing 547.5 gm. valued at Rs. 14,77,073/-seized from the possession of the appellant while he was in the transit area of the IGI Airport, T-3, New Delhi. Further, appellant was imposed a composite penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs under Section 112 and 114 AA of the Customs Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
