9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 09,02.2013 and was found to carry 124 grams of gold jewellery valued at Rs. 3,73,379/-. The applicant had not declared the impugned gold, but for the timely interception by the proper officers of Customs this would have gone un-noticed. Hence the impugned gold was confiscated by the lower adjudicating authority under the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992.The applicant was given an option to redeem the impugned gold for re-export on payment of fine of under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. Penalty of Rs. 37,340/under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, was also imposed on the applicant. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, the applicant filed appeal before Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd render justice. 5. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 07.09.15 & 13.10.2015. Neither the applicant nor respondent attended the hearing. On behalf of the applicant her authorized counsel Shri K, Mohmmad Ismail vide his letter dated 06.10.2015 has sought for the waiver of personal hearing and requested to treat his grounds of revision mentioned in his revision application as their written submission and arguments for Revision. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records available in case files, written submissions and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. Upon perusal of records, Government observes that the applicant brought the gold jewellery weighing 124 grams, valued at Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cerned Customs officers at airport and nothing was concealed nor misdeclared by the applicant. Applicant had no past record of offense and she brought the goods not for trading but as gifts for relatives and friends. 9. Government further observes that Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order in-Original on the grounds that the passenger contravened the provisions of Section 77. He stated that as per Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962 the onus of making a true declaration vests with the applicant as a passenger. In this case, the applicant did not make a declaration of the gold but attempted to smuggle the same by keeping them on her person and walking through the green channel with an intention to avoid detection by Customs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officers under Section 108 of customs Act, 1962. (ii) The decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of "Assistant Collector of Customs Madras-I vs. Govindasamy Ragupathy" 1998(98) ELT 50 (Mad.), in which the court held that the confessional statement under Section 108 even though later retracted is a voluntary statement and was not influenced by duress and is a true one". (iii) The confessional statement given before the Customs Officers are admissible evidence as they are not police officers. This view has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badaku Joti Savant vs. state of Mysore. [ 1978 (2) ELT J 323(SC) I 12. Government further finds that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
