By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, AUG 10, 2015: THE petitioner is a Trustee of the World Monument Fund.

During the course of some events abroad, she travelled from Mumbai and on her return, finding that she was tired, but permitted by Protocol practices to leave the Airport terminal, she left it. Before that, she handed over her passport and disembarkation slip to one Kirit Sodha and Raymond Vakulkar, officials of the company JSW Steel Limited who attended the CSI Airport to receive her. They were orally directed to complete Customs formalities. She left the necessary documents/column in the declaratory slips blank.

Both officers opted for Green Channel, where they were diverted by Customs officers for screening of the baggage and further examination.

It is thereupon the scrutiny commenced and after the passport and disembarkation slips were perused it was revealed that the petitioner was returning after three days' stay abroad. There was no declaration of value of the goods carried by the passenger. It is in these circumstances the goods were examined and it revealed gold jewellery, ladies purse, silver cutlery and miscellaneous goods covered by Annexures A to C of the Panchanama.

The petitioner herself owned up and accepted all mistakes, including of non-filling up the relevant column in the slips or declaration. She stated on the other hand that the gold jewellery is old and used. It has been taken out on the strength of export certificate at the time of departure and was re-imported back and that purses and other articles were brought for her daughter's wedding as gifts.

Suffice to say that imposition of fine & penalty followed the order of confiscation of goods. Against the order, an appeal came to be filed and against the o-in-a, a revision application was filed before the GOI and it is against this order that the petitioner is before the Bombay High Court.

It is inter alia submitted that -

"the order passed is perverse; the approach of the Government in matters of this nature and where the petitioner's officers or the petitioner was not responsible for the alleged breaches or violations exhibits complete non-application of mind to the vital materials; the petitioner was never intending to take advantage and of her position in Protocol; she returned immediately back to the Airport and on the same day in order to clarify the matter; for all these reasons, the slur and stigma on the petitioner should be removed."

The High Court after going the concurrent orders and the submissions made observed -

++ Surely if the petitioner's Protocol enabled her to leave the terminal before even the baggage was cleared and she could rely upon her company officials to clear the goods, then, she cannot turn around and blame the Department of Customs and other officials for having scrutinized and verified the baggage and documents. If the documents revealed certain discrepancies and which are accepted by her, then, it is not for us to substitute our opinion with that of the authorities and concurrently rendered. There is thus no substance in the first argument that the impugned order is perverse.

++ The authorities have been careful in obtaining opinions and before the valuation was finalised. The impugned orders and particularly the revisional order reveals that the petitioner had argued that she has not violated section 77 of the Customs Act as she handed over her baggages, passport and blank customs declaration form duly signed along with keys to her proxies and that they collected her baggages and reported to the Batch Officer. It is they who acted on his directions and walked through the Green Channel. The records revealed otherwise and after the baggages were subjected to detailed examination resulting in gold jewellery recovery valued at Rs.38,99,000/- imported ladies purses and goods valued at Rs.9,16,634/- and silver items valued at Rs.12,01,634/-, then the petitioner cannot complain. She did not in her documents declare the value of the goods imported by her. The company officials also could not declare the same to the Customs and in terms of the procedures. Handing over blank documents compounded the matter further. Therefore, while determining the quantum of penalty, the concurrent orders take into account the valuation of the materials. The penalty is not on the higher side at all.

++ With regard to her position and being a responsible citizen of India, knowing fully well the procedures which have to be followed and complied with while travelling abroad, in addition, being a frequent traveller, it was expected of the petitioner not to have acted in the manner done. In the circumstances, we do not find that the imposition of penalty visits her with any stigma or casts a slur as complained. The quantum of penalty is also not something which is seriously disputed.

Holding that the order did not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of record or is perverse,the petition was held to be devoid of merits and, therefore, dismissed.

(See 2015-TIOL-1804-HC-MUM-CUS)