Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

Customs Act not applicable on Gold Seized from Transit Passenger from Bangkok going to Dubai via New Delhi: CESTAT [Read Order]

As the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 are not applicable to the facts of the case, the tribunal held that gold in question is not liable for confiscation

Customs Act not applicable on Gold Seized from Transit Passenger from Bangkok going to Dubai via New Delhi: CESTAT [Read Order]
X

In a recent case, the New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise &Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the Customs Act, 1961, does not apply to gold seized from a transit passenger from Bangkok going to Dubai via New Delhi. Jai Kishan Choudhary, the appellant, is in appeal against the impugned order wherein gold recovered from his position weighing 1215 gms...


In a recent case, the New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise &Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the Customs Act, 1961, does not apply to gold seized from a transit passenger from Bangkok going to Dubai via New Delhi.

Jai Kishan Choudhary, the appellant, is in appeal against the impugned order wherein gold recovered from his position weighing 1215 gms has been confiscated and penalty on the appellant has been imposed. Based on specific intelligence that three passengers, one namely, the appellant will arrived arrived from Bangkok to Delhi via Flight No- 9W 065 dated 25.05.2018 and was further scheduled to depart from New Delhi to Dubai by Flight No. 9W 0548 dated 25.05.2018 and Mr. Kamal Manjeet Sahota, who was scheduled to depart from New Delhi to Hyderabad by Flight No. Al 126 dated 25.05.2018 and Mrs. Meena Ashok Gupta, who was also scheduled to depart from New Delhi to Hyderabad by Flight No. AI 126 dated 25.05.2018 were being followed by the Customs officers.

All three passengers were carrying hand baggage only. The appellant was followed from the bus gate of the IGI Airport to the departure area of IGI Airport through the transit area whereas Mr. Kamal Manjeet Sahota and Mrs. Meena Ashok Gupta were followed from the entry gate of IGI departures to the departure gate.

As per the intelligence, the appellant was carrying Gold which he had to hand over to other two persons and had to receive foreign currency in return from those persons. However, the appellant got some suspicion and did not complete the transaction and proceeded to board their respective flights.

All three passengers were intercepted and one representative from Air India and one from Jet Airways were called by the Custom officers in which Mr. Himanshu from Jet Airways and Mr. Aswant Ellath from Air India presented themselves. The said Airline representatives were requested to offload all three passengers and they were brought to the Customs Preventive Room situated at the Customs Arrival Area after completing the immigration procedures of the appellant. At this stage, two independent panchas were requested to witness the Customs proceedings.

In the presence of panchas, the gold was recovered from the rectum of the appellant weighing 1215 gms. Thereafter, various statements were recorded, and the show cause notice was issued to the appellant for absolute confiscation of smuggled gold and to impose penalty on the appellant. The matter was adjudicated, the gold in question was absolutely confiscated and the penalty on the appellant was imposed. The said order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals), who affirmed the order of the adjudicating authority. Against the said order, the appellant is before me.

The Authorized Representative took the preliminary objection that it is a case of baggage, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the appellant. On the other hand, counsel for the appellant opposes the contention of the AR. She contended that the appellant has not crossed the green channel without declaring the goods in question, in that circumstances, the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 are not applicable to the facts of the case.

A single member bench of Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) found that the appellant had not crossed the green channel and had not even gone for immigration and the appellant was a transit passenger who was coming from Bangkok and going to Dubai via New Delhi. In those circumstances, the appellant has not crossed the immigration. Therefore, the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 are not applicable to the facts of the case.

As the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 are not applicable to the facts of the case, the tribunal held that gold in question is not liable for confiscation. Consequently, gold is required to be released to the appellant and no penalty is imposable on the appellant.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

Next Story

Related Stories

All Rights Reserved. Copyright @2019