Case law

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal · 19 Dec 2024

Vicky Ramchand Asrani vs Mumbai-Air Port

Legal principle

Illicit import of gold must be deterred, but not by alienation of possession from its owner — where goods are merely restricted and not truly prohibited, absolute confiscation under section 125 fails and the owner is entitled to redeem them on payment of fine.

Court decision

The Tribunal held the appeal maintainable, reasoning that an interpretation excluding baggage disputes from the Tribunal's jurisdiction would be contrary to Article 323B of the Constitution and an arbitrary denial of the right of appeal. On merits, it found no fault with the confiscation under sections 111(l) and 111(m) for non-declaration under section 77, but set aside the absolute confiscation and permitted redemption of the gold jewelry on payment of a fine of ₹50,000, with penalty reduced from ₹1,00,000 to ₹50,000 — largely in favour of the appellant.

Facts

Appellant Vicky Ramchand Asrani arrived at CSMI Airport, Mumbai from Abu Dhabi on 25 May 2023 carrying a 24-karat crude gold chain weighing 100 grams and valued at ₹5,41,450, admittedly purchased in Abu Dhabi with intent to resell at a profit. Customs deprived him of the jewellery on his person, and the adjudicating authority confiscated it absolutely under sections 111(d), 111(l) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 without redemption option. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the absolute confiscation and imposed a penalty of ₹1,00,000. Before the Tribunal, the Department objected to maintainability, contending that baggage matters lie in revision under section 129DD and not before the Tribunal under section 129B(1).

Key provisions