Case Law Details
Rakesh Luthra Vs Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General) (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT Delhi held that attempt to smuggle gold by breaching the condition for import makes it a prohibited goods. Accordingly, such prohibited goods cannot be allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine or cannot be permitted for re-export. Hence, such prohibited goods is liable for absolute confiscation.
Facts- Appellants arrived on 08.06.2019 at New Delhi by Air India Flight from Bangkok and walked through Green Channel and they all were intercepted near the exit gate of the Customs Arrival Hall. Post search, 5218 gms gold was recovered from the appellants. The recovered gold was seized under different seizure memos u/s. 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the reasonable belief that the same were liable to be confiscated u/s. 111 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The original adjudicating authority passed the impugned Order-in-Original holding that the appellants were not eligible passengers to import gold. Hence the imported gold was confiscated but allowed redemption of the same on payment of fine, penalty and duty at baggage rate. The adjudicating authority also permitted re-export of gold in respect of two appellants. The duty on gold said to be brought by them on their past visits was also confirmed.
Conclusion- Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case Bhargavraj Rameshkumar Mehta Vs. Union of India has held that attempt to smuggle by concealing the same, and breaching the condition for the import of such goods would make them „prohibited goods‟ in terms of Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962. Once it is established that the goods are prohibited, then there cannot be an option for either redemption or re-export, and such goods are liable for absolute confiscation.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
