Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (5) TMI 474

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... will render such goods liable for confiscation u/s 111. The law is well settled that violation of any condition or restriction in respect of the imported goods makes those as prohibited goods. In the case of Shri Shankar Lal Goyal vs. Commissioner of Customs [ 2023 (12) TMI 1156 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] , has held that since the conditions of import of gold as per the notification issued by the DGFT and the restrictions imposed by the RBI have been violated, then in such case, the offending gold has to be treated as prohibited goods u/s 2 (33) of the Act of 1962 and consequently, it would fall within the definition of smuggling u/s 2 (39) and would rendered such goods liable for confiscation u/s 111. Therefore, the observations made by both the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Inder Prakash Kohli. During search operation, 5 packets wrapped with black colour adhesive tapes containing 1kg gold bar each were recovered from his hand carried brown colour bag, which was valued at Rs 1,36,50,000/. The said gold bars were seized under the provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, referred to as the Act of 1962 ). 1.2 During the course of search operation, the DRI officers recorded the statements (all dated 20.06.2014) of Shri Vinod Khanna, Shri Hari Sharan Khanna, Shri Inder Prakash Kohli and others under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962. In their voluntary statements, they had inter alia admitted that the gold bars were smuggled into India by Shri Vinod Khanna under the direction of Shri Inder P .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pugned order, the appellant Shri Vinod Khanna has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Heard both sides and examined the case records, including the written submission filed by the learned Authorised Representative. 3. The statements recorded by the Department under summons from various persons together with the material evidences relied upon by the lower authorities in their respective orders make the position amply clear that as per the instructions of Shri Inder Prakash Kohli, the appellant Shri Vinod Khanna had gone to Dubai and brought alleged gold bars and avoided the Red Channel route at the destination airport, in order to evade payment of customs duty attributable to the said offending goods. Shri Hari Sharan Khanna also c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or absolute confiscation is not proper and justified and accordingly, it should be provided with the option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine in terms of Section 125 of the Act of 1962. The phrase prohibited goods has been defined in sub-section (33) of Section 2 in the Act of 1962 to mean any goods, the import or export of which is subject to any prohibition under this Act or other law in force. Sub-section (39) of Section 2 has conveyed the meaning of smuggling in relation to any goods as any act or omission, which will render such goods liable for confiscation under Section 111. Section 79 has provided the discretion to the proper officer to allow clearance of imported goods free of duty, subject to fulfillment of the cond .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rendered such goods liable for confiscation under Section 111. Therefore, I am in agreement with the observations made by both the authorities below that the imported gold bars in this case are liable for absolute confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act. 5. The records in this case have transpires that the appellant had knowingly concerned himself with goods, which he knew were liable to confiscation and accordingly, he rendered himself liable for penal action provided under Section 112(b) of the Act of 1962. Further by not declaring the gold in the prescribed declaration form before the Customs authorities, he had rendered himself liable to penal action provided under Section 114AA of the Act. 6. In view of the foregoing discussions, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates