By TIOL News Service

HYDERABAD, MAY 01, 2019: THE officers of Customs AIU intercepted the appellants at Hyderabad International Airport. The husband-wife duo were carrying 5 gold bangles of 99.9 purity and weighing 311 grams valued at Rs. 8,50,000/-. These bangles were not declared before the Customs and were recovered by the Officers of AIU when the appellants were exiting the exit gate.

The appellants stated that the gold bangles were given by their daughter while they were in Chicago. Revenue argument was that in view of the FTP, since the couple had not stayed abroad for more than six months, they were not 'eligible passengers' to bring gold. Further, as they had not declared the gold bangles before the Customs before leaving India, the same could not be considered as personal baggage and hence are liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962.

The adjudication proceedings culminated in confiscation of the gold bangles with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and appropriate Customs duty. Penalties were also imposed u/s 112 and u/s 114AA of the Act.

The Commissioner(A) dismissed the appeal of the husband-wife duo but the Tribunal had remanded the matter.

In remand proceedings, the Commissioner(A) partly modified the order inasmuch as reduced the penalty of Rs.30,000/- imposed u/s 114AA to Rs.5000/-.

Again, the appellants are before the CESTAT.

After considering the submissions, the SMB, inter alia observed -

"5. …, the fact is that the appellant had, as per the records, got the bangles while she arrived at Hyderabad Airport and had not declared the same to the Officers under Section 77. It is the responsibility of the passenger to make declaration which she failed. The fact that there were some blank forms signed by her which are lying in the coat pocket of her husband does not change this situation. On merits, she could have claimed that the bangles were actually taken by her out of India by producing evidence of such a declaration made before the Customs authorities while leaving the country. She failed to do so. The gold bangles so brought in by the appellant without declaring them cannot be called bonafide baggage but only smuggled goods. They cannot even claim ignorance because they had blank baggage declaration forms which they signed and kept in pocket until caught."

On the other pleas made in appeal viz. that disciplinary action be initiated against the officers who conducted the investigation and who passed the o-in-o, o-in-a; that remand order was passed by a different officer than the one who passed the original order, the CESTAT rejected the same as being 'downright absurd' and by noting that the officers concerned had merely discharged their responsibilities.

Concluding that the impugned order was a balanced once needing no interference, the appeal was rejected.

(See 2019-TIOL-1226-CESTAT-HYD)