COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. JYOTSNA CHIKERSAL & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Customs Authorities have filed these proceedings questioning the decision of the Settlement Commission made upon an application filed by the respondent. It is contended that the Settlement Commission could not have, by virtue of third proviso to Section 127B [read with Section 123(2)] of the Customs Act, lawfully entertained the application and proceeded to pass orders settling the issues urged.

(2.) The respondent, who is a former United Nations official, arrived at IGI Airport, Delhi, on 04.05.2014; carrying 6 gold bars weighing 1832.4 gms, valued at Rs. 45,45,222/-. She did not declare the gold either at the stage of clearing the customs area or disclose the information in the disembarkation slip. Upon search, the gold was detected and seized from her person. The show cause notice was issued on 22.10.2014. On 13.01.2015, the respondent moved the Settlement application which was finally disposed of and the matter settled by recording a final settlement order on 05.06.2015.

(3.) The Union of India through the Customs Department urges that Section 123(1) which provides for shifting the burden of proof where the goods are seized in the reasonable belief that they have been smuggled, would apply to gold, watches and any other class of goods which the Central Government notifies. It is urged that this is apparent by virtue of Section 123(2), and the third proviso of Section 123B operates as a clear bar to the Settlement Commission's jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Customs authorities relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Additional Commissioner of Customs vs. Ram Niwas Verma, 2015 323 ELT 424 (Del), especially the following extract: