1991 (1) TMI 304 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay application for penalty imposition.
2. Confiscation of jewellery due to non-declaration at Customs counter.
3. Interpretation of Tourist Baggage Rules regarding declaration of high-value articles.
4. Legal justification for confiscation and penalty imposition.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought a stay on a penalty imposition of Rs. 5,000. The Tribunal dispensed with the predeposit of penalty, considering a prima facie case made by the appellant, and proceeded to hear the appeal.

2. The appellant, a tourist, arrived at Calcutta Airport and did not declare gold jewellery seized from her handbag. The Customs Act was invoked for seizure under Sections 111(d) and 111(m). The appellant's representative argued no concealment occurred, as jewellery in a handbag is common for ladies. The Tribunal found no proof of declaration non-compliance by the appellant till the exit gate, setting aside the confiscation and penalty based on lack of evidence.

3. The Department contended the appellant should have declared jewellery under Tourist Baggage Rules. Rule 7 required an undertaking for high-value articles, including jewellery, to re-export or pay duty. The Department distinguished a previous case where jewellery was worn from the current case where jewellery was in the handbag. The Tribunal analyzed the Rules, emphasizing the need for a list of high-value articles after baggage examination, which was not done in this case, leading to the decision in favor of the appellant.

4. The Tribunal referenced a previous decision to support its ruling, emphasizing the lack of evidence of declaration non-compliance by the appellant. The Tribunal concluded that the confiscation and penalty were not in accordance with the law due to the absence of a required list of high-value articles and set aside the decision, allowing the appeal and granting consequential reliefs to the appellant.