Chandrasegaram Vijayasundaram Vs Principal Commissioner (Revision Application) (Madras High Court)
It was incumbent on the part of the petitioners to have made proper declaration under Customs Baggage Declaration Regulations, 2013 read with Baggage Rules 2016. These Rules apply to all passengers including tourist coming to India.
Facts-
Petitioners, belonging to the same family, are Srilankan nationals based in Colombo. They arrived at the Chennai Airport on 06.05.2017 along with two minor children of the first and second petitioners. All the petitioners were wearing 1594 kgs of gold jewelries valued at Rs.43,95,854/-.
It appears that they attempted to walk through the green channel along with two minor children wearing 1594 kgs of gold jewelries without making declaration before the Customs Officers. Apart from the jewelries, the first petitioner had also purchased about 112 bottles of liquor valued at Rs.1,50,000/-.
The officers of Air Customs Department intercepted them and found that there was an attempt to smuggle liquor beyond the permissible limit. It was further found that these petitioners along with two minor children were wearing jewelries weighing about 1594 kgs and therefore the jewelries and the liquor bottles were seized. Subsequently, a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 was issued to them on 02.11.2017.
Vide OIO the redemption fine u/s 125 and penalty u/s 112(a) and 114AA was imposed on the petitioners. Based on the succession before appellate commissioner, petitioner wanted refund of the amount paid. However, the respondents had filed revision application.
Conclusion-
Held that as the value of the gold ornaments worn in person of the respective petitioners exceeded Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), it was incumbent on the part of the petitioners to have made proper declaration under Customs Baggage Declaration Regulations, 2013 read with Baggage Rules 2016. These Rules apply to all passengers including tourist coming to India.
Held that the conduct of the petitioners attempting to walk through the green channel without proper declaration had raised serious doubts and thus proceedings initiated against the petitioners are in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the first respondent.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the first respondent, Revisionary Authority under Section 129 DD of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. By the impugned order, the first respondent, Revisionary Authority has disposed of the revision application filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai and has partly reversed the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) vide Order in Appeal No C.Cus.1.No.69-73/2018 dated 27.04.2018.
3. The petitioners herein are members of the same family. The first and second petitioners are the husband and wife respectively. The third and fourth petitioners are the parents of the first petitioner while the fifth petitioner is the paternal aunt of the first petitioner.
4. These petitioners are Srilankan nationals based in Colombo. They arrived at the Chennai Airport on 06.05.2017 along with two minor children of the first and second petitioners. All the petitioners were wearing 1594 kgs of gold jewelries valued at Rs.43,95,854/-.
5. It appears that they attempted to walk through the green channel along with two minor children wearing 1594 kgs of gold jewelries without making declaration before the Customs Officers. Apart from the jewelries, the first petitioner had also purchased about 112 bottles of liquor valued at Rs.1,50,000/-.
6. The officers of Air Customs Department intercepted them and found that there was an attempt to smuggle liquor beyond the permissible limit. It was further found that these petitioners along with two minor children were wearing jewelries weighing about 1594 kgs and therefore the jewelries and the liquor bottles were seized. Subsequently, a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 was issued to them on 02.11.2017, to show cause as to why:-
i) the five nos. of gold bangales and two nos. of gold chains, totally weighing 3871 gms and totally valued at Rs.9,90,236/- and the 24 bottles of Chivas Regal (each 1 ltr) valued at Rs.36,000/- the goods totally valued at Rs.10,26,236/- recovered from the possession of Shri. Chandrasegaram Vijayasundaram should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) and
(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Foreign Trade ( Development & Regulation) Act, 1992;
ii) the four nos. of gold bangales and one gold chain, totally weighing 293.5 gms and totally valued at Rs.8,14,076/- and the 12 bottles of Black Label (each 1Ltr) and 6 bottles of Chivas Regal totally valued at Rs.27,000/- and the goods totally valued at Rs.8,10,381/- recovered from the possession of Smt.Vijayasundarammahalakshmi should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) and (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Foregin Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992;
iii) the two nos. of gold kadas and two nos. of gold chains, totally weighing 322 gms and totally valued at Rs.8,59,450/- and the 25 bottles of Chivas Regal (each 1 Ltr) valued at Rs.37,500/- the goods totally valued at Rs.8,96,950/- recovered from the possession of Shri. Somasundaram Chandrasegaram should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) and (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Foreign Trade Development & Regulation) Act, 1992;
iv) the four nos. of gold bangles and one gold chain with pendant, totally weighing 293.5 gms and totally valued at Rs.7,83,381/- and the 20 bottles of Chivas Regal (each 1 Ltr) valued at Rs.30,000/- , the gollds totally alued at Rs.8,13,381/- recovered from the possession of Smt.ChandrasegaramRajaluxmi should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) and (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Foreign Trade ( Development & Regulation) Act, 1992;
v) the four nos. of gold bangles and one gold chain with pendant, totally weighing 304 gms and totally valued at Rs.8,11,406/- and the 25 bottles of Chivas Regal Whisky (each 1 Ltr) valued at Rs.37,500/- , the goods totally valued at Rs.8,48,906/- recovered from the possession of Smt.Chandrasegaram Rajaluxmi should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) and (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Foreign Trade ( Development & Regulation) Act, 1992;
vi)penalty should not be imposed on Shri.Chandrasegaram Vijayasundaram, Smt.Vijayasundaram Mahalakshmi, Shri Somasundaram Chandrasegaram, Smt.Chandrasegaram Rajaluxmi and Smt.Raveendhiran Shanthadevi under Section 112
(a) of the Customs Act, 1962;
vii)penalty should not be imposed on Shri.Chandrasegaram Viajyasundaram, Smt.Vijayasundaram Mahalakshmi, Shri.Somasundaram Chandrasegaram, Smt.Chandrasegaram Rajaluxmi and Smt.Raveendhiran Shanthadevi under Section 114
AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
7. The allegations against the petitioners in the show cause notice dated 2.11.2017, reads as under:-
“10. Shri.K.Sudhakaran, Supervisor of Flemingo Duty Free Shop (Arrival & Departure), Anna International Airport, Chennai gave a voluntary statement dated 10.05.2017, wherein he has inter-alia stated that 12 bottles were sold to the group of passengers against their respective passports; that he would submit the sales details after ascertaining the same from Shri Aneesh, who was the sales staff attending to the sales to the passengers on that day.
11. A summons was issued to Shri.K.Sudhakaran, of M/s.Flemingo DFS, under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 on 15.05.2017, as he had failed to submit the sales details of the said date after ascertaining the same from Shri Aneesh, the sales person of DFS as assured by him in his earlier statement. In response to the said Summons, Shri Sudhakaran appeared on 15.05.2017 and gave a voluntary statement wherein he has inter-alia stated that Shri Aneesh, the sales person of DFS who was on duty on the said date had mistakenly sold 112 liquor bottles to the said passengers without knowing the Rules and that he requested to pardon him.
12. Shri Sudhakaran, M/s. Flemingo DFS has submitted a letter dated 18.05.2017, wherein he has stated that he was under the bonafide impression that the matter had been resolved by the aforesaid proceeding; that after seeing the summons issued to him, he was in confused state of mind; that it made him to give a statement on 15.05.2017 as “Shri Aneesh, has mistakenly sold 112 liquor bottles to the said passengers without knowing the Rules properly and that he has requested to ignore the said statement given on 15.05.2017.
13. Shri ChandrasegaramVijayasundaram, has submitted a letter on 08.06.2017, wherein he has stated that the gold jewellery that were recovered from his family were their personal jewellery and requested for re-export; that in his earlier statement he has stated that liquor bottles were purchased from DFS Chennai was not true; that as his family jewellery was also detained, he was in confused state of mind. Further, he has stated that he bought only 12 bottles from DFS Chennai for which he paid 384 USD; that the co-passengers who travelled in the same flight, on seeing him requesting to DFS, Chennai for more bottles, offered to sell him their liquor bottles bought and brought from Srilanka for extra 3 US Dollars above the cost price per bottle; that they were seem to be tour operators/group of family and were not familiar to him; that he has paid USD 3400 for all liquor bottles to them and that these bottles were kept in 5 suitcases and distributed to his family members.
14. Shri J.P.Jenne alias Aneesh in his voluntary statement dated 09.06.2017 had stated that he had sold 12 bottles to Shri ChandrasegaramVijayasundaram and his family on 06.05.2017 for 6 passports (2 bottles per passport) and that the payment made was in US Dollar currency and the bills with regard to the sales of the same had also been submitted, the details of which are given below:-
