2016 (8) TMI 530 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Release of gold – smuggling – seizure – prohibited goods or not - gold certified to be of foreign origin – liable to confiscation – voluntary admitted that gold smuggled and sold without invoices and received gold bars in consideration – search of various buyers to whom smuggled gold sold - Provisional release of goods under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962 – Held that: - the discretion exercised by the competent authority, to deny provisional release, is in accordance with law. When there is a prima case of smuggling, for which, action for confiscation is taken, such proceedings taken should be allowed, to reach its logical end, and not to the stiffed, by any provisional release – provisional release not allowed.

Prohibited goods - If there is a fraudulent evasion of the restrictions imposed, under the Customs Act, 1962 or any other law for the time being in force, then import of gold, in contravention of the above, is prohibited. For prohibitions and restrictions, Customs Act, 1962, provides for machinery, by means of search, seizure, confiscation and penalties. Act also provides for detection, prevention and punishment for evasion of duty.

The expression, subject to prohibition in the Act and any other the law for the time being in force. in Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, has wide cannotation and meaning, and it should be interpreted, in the context of the scheme of the Act, and not to be confined to a narrow meaning that gold is not an enumerated prohibited good to be imported into the country. If such narrow construction and meaning have to be given, then the object of the Customs Act, 1962, would be defeated.

Appeal dismissed – decided against appellant.