TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overnment has examined the matter and it is found that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the applicant had violated Section 77 of Customs Act, 1962 by not declaring gold bars to the Customs authorities on his arrival at Airport from Dubai. Accordingly, Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly upheld the Order-in-Original to the extent of confiscating the gold bars which were brought from Dubai with the intention to evade customs duty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld Additional Commissioner s order of absolute confiscation of gold on the premise that the gold brought by the applicant had become prohibited when it was sought to be smuggled in by changing the form of gold into wire and by concealing the same in beading of hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctions with regard to importation of goods is generally applicable irrespective of the individual case like goods will not be imported without declaration to the Customs and without payment of duty leviable thereof, etc. Such restriction is clearly a general restriction/regulation, but it cannot be stated that the imported goods become prohibited goods if brought in contravention of such restriction. Apparently because such goods when imported in violation of specified legal provisions are also liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) has ordered for absolute confiscation - The Commissioner (Appeals) should have provide an option to the applicant under Section 125 of the Customs Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licant who reiterated the grounds of revision already stated in the revision application. However, no one appeared for the respondent. 4. From the revision application it is evident that the applicant does not dispute the Commissioner (Appeals) s order regarding confiscation of the goods which were brought by him illegally from Dubai in violation of Customs Act and the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and his request is limited to a point that the confiscated gold may be released on payment of redemption fine and reasonable penalty. 5. Government has examined the matter and it is found that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the applicant had violated Section 77 of Customs Act, 1962 by not declaring gold b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation of gold at all and rather changed the form of gold into wire and by concealing the same in beading of his stroller bag with clear intention to evade customs duty. While the Government is fully convinced that unusual method of concealment of gold is a very relevant factor for determining the quantum of fine and penalty, it does not agree with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the gold had become prohibited only because of its unusual method of smuggling by changing the form of gold into wire and concealing the same in beading of his stroller bag even when the gold is not notified as prohibited goods under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 or any other law. Prohibited goods is a distinct class of goods which can be notified by the Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contravention of any legal provision are also termed as prohibited goods, as envisaged in Section 11, Section 111(i) and Section 125 of Customs Act, then all such goods will become prohibited and other category of non-prohibited goods for which option of redemption is to be provided compulsorily under Section 125 of the Act will become redundant. Thus while any goods imported without payment of duty and in violation of any provision of the Customs Act is also certainly liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, but confiscated goods is not necessarily to be always prohibited goods. While there is no dispute in this case that the gold brought by the applicant from Dubai is liable for confiscation because he did not follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and by upholding absolute confiscation of gold in this case. Accordingly the Commissioner (Appeals) should have provide an option to the applicant under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of customs duties, redemption fine and penalty and because it was not done so earlier, the Government now allows the applicant to redeem the confiscated gold within 30 days from the date of issuance of this order on payment of customs duty, fine of ₹ 4,50,000/- and penalty of ₹ 1,75,000/- already imposed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. Accordingly, the revision application is disposed of and the Commissioner (Appeals) s order is modified in ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
