Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 447 - CESTAT HYDERABADSmuggling - 5 gold bangles of 99.9 purity and weighing 311 grams - non-declared goods - baggage rules - It is the case of the Revenue that the appellant was, first of all, not entitled to carry the gold because they had not stayed in abroad for more than six months to become eligible passenger to bring gold as required under the Foreign Trade Policy applicable during the relevant period. Further, they have not declared the gold bangles before the Customs - confiscation. Held that:- The only point of merit which the appellant is claiming is that she had taken five kadas out of India while leaving. If that be so, it should have been recorded in the passport or the appellant could have declared somewhere before the Customs while leaving or produce the same to substantiate their claim that these bangles were actually taken by her out of India while leaving and have been brought back in the genuine personal baggage. The records would show that when the bangles seized by the Customs Officers from the passenger, she claimed that the same were given by her daughter while she was in Chicago and carried out them while leaving from abroad. Therefore, this argument of the appellant holds no water. s per the records, got the bangles while she arrived at Hyderabad Airport and had not declared the same to the Officers under Section 77. It is the responsibility of the passenger to make declaration which she failed. The fact that there were some blank forms signed by her which are lying in the coat pocket of her husband does not change this situation - They cannot even claim ignorance because they had blank baggage declaration forms which they signed and kept in pocket until caught. As far as the request of the appellant to initiate disciplinary action or direct the Department to take disciplinary action against the Officers who have investigated the matter or passed the adjudication orders or the Orders in Appeal against them are concerned, this is downright absurd. No Officer can be punished for catching the appellant smuggling the goods, investigating the matter, issuing show cause notice, adjudicating the matter or passing Order-in-Appeal - They have discharged their responsibilities in catching the appellant while smuggling gold and completing the investigation and legal proceedings. There is no ground to interfere with the confiscation of the goods in question under section 111 or penalties under section 112(a)(ii) and 114AA as ordered by the first appellate authority in the impugned order - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|