MOHD. AZEEM Vs. CC (AIRPORT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant against the Order -in -Original No. 75/2000 -INT dated 31.5.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, (Airport), Chennai, whereby the Commissioner has confiscated gold jewellery weighing 2,934 gms valued at Rs. 12,49,003(I.V.) (Rupees twelve lakhs forty -nine thousand and three only) and foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 84,539 (Rupees Eighty -four thousand five hundred and thirty -nine) Under section 113(d) and (h) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Sections 13 and 67 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. He has also confiscated 13 packets of hair clips valued at Rs. 5000 (CIF) (Rupees Five thousand only) and two polythene bags and the packing tape of no commercial value used to wrap the gold jewellery Under section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962. He has also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 15000 (Rupees Fifteen thousand) on the appellant Under section 114(i) of the Act.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 2.10.1999 officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai intercepted the appellant herein, holder of Sri Lankan Passport, bound for Colombo by Indian Airlines flight and when asked whether he was carrying any contraband he replied in the negative. Black colour Zip bag with tag No. 0026172 was found to contain Gold jewellery weighing 2934 grams valued at Rs. 12,49,003 (I.V.) in two polythene wrapped with packing tapes and 15 packets of hair clips valued at Rs. 5,000 (CIF). Personal search of the passenger resulted in the recovery of foreign currency equivalent of Indian Rs. 84,539. Appellant admitted that the gold jewellery and the foreign currency belonged to one Liaqat Ali who had promised to give him Rs. 10,000, if he successfully evaded the Customs and hand over the same at Colombo. The gold jewellery, foreign currency, black zipper bag alongwith 15 packets of ladies hair clips used for concealing the said gold jewellery, together with the air ticket, boarding card and the baggage tags of the appellant were seized under a mahazar for further action. The appellant in his voluntary statement dated 2.10.1999 narrated the sequence of events that subsequently led to the seizure of the goods. He has also given another statement on 28.12.99 wherein it was stated inter alia that the gold jewellery and foreign currency belonged to Liaqat and the whereabouts of the said person was not known. It was in these circumstances that show cause notice was issued to the appellant and other person viz. Liaqat Ali, which culminated in the order of adjudication as noted above.

(3.) Shri A. Ganesh, learned Counsel for the appellant referred to the grounds of appeal and submitted that initial statement given by the appellant on 2.10.99 was retracted by him on 20.10.99 wherein he has stated that the gold jewellery belonged to him. He submitted that the appellant is a Srilankan National and there was no need for him to have taken permission for taking gold jewellery to Sri Lanka inasmuch as there is no prohibition or restriction imposed by the Reserve Bank of India for export of gold jewellery. He has also invited our attention to Section 13 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 wherein the Reserve Bank of India has permitted any person in India but not a resident therein to take out of India, foreign exchange. He has therefore, submitted that there was no violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, committed by the appellant. He has also produced a copy of the order of this Tribunal in the case of Halithu Ibrahim v. CC, (Airport), Chennai vide Final Order No. 172/2002 dated 22.2.2002 wherein in similar circumstances, matter was remanded for reconsideration. He has also invited our attention to the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Philip Fernandes v. CC, Airport, Mumbai, 2001 (131) ELT 250 (Tri -Mumbai). In that case, though the currency was not declared by the appellant therein, the department itself allowed redemption of the same on payment of fine and penalty, and on appeal, the Tribunal reduced the fine and penalty. He has also referred to similar order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Nasakika Hoshino v. CC, (Airport), Calcutta, 2000 (115) ELT 209. He, therefore, prayed for similar orders.