Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2022 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 1391 - HC - CustomsSmuggling - Absolute Confiscation of seized Gold - prohibited goods - power of the adjudicating authority in terms of Section 125 of Customs Act, to confiscate absolutely - HELD THAT:- Sub-section (1) of Section 125 provides that whenever confiscation of any goods is authorized by the Act, the officer adjudging it, the importation or exportation of goods which is prohibited may and shall in other cases offer an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. It is in this context that the counsel for the department has argued that the case falls under the first part of sub-section (1) of Section 125. In a recent judgment dated 17.02.2022 Division Bench of this Court [2022 (2) TMI 1081 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] has considered a very similar issue. It was a case in which the assessee had attempted to smuggle gold by concealing it in his handbag and not declaring the same upon arrival at the international airport. The authorities had provided absolute confiscation of gold and also imposed penalties. In the context of interpretation of Section 125 of the Customs Act, this Court held Whenever confiscation of goods is authorized under the Act, as per sub-section (1) of Section 125 the adjudicating officer has a discretion to offer redemption fine in lieu of confiscation in case of goods importation or exportation whereof is prohibited. In all other cases there is a statutory mandate on the adjudicating officer to offer such redemption fine. If the interpretation of Section 112 and 125(1) is not reconciled as above, this latter portion of sub-section (1) of Section 125 which covers all cases except where the importation or exportation of the goods is prohibited, would become otiose. Attention drawn to the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIR) VERSUS SAMYNATHAN MURUGESAN & CESTAT [2009 (4) TMI 77 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] in which view taken was slightly different. It is pointed out that the said decision was also upheld by the Supreme Court when the SLP was dismissed. Petition dismissed.
|