Page 268 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

914 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Confiscation (Contd.)
Passenger, a NRI and residing in Dubai for last 15 years cannot take an
alibi that he was not aware of provisions regarding import of gold by
NRIs - Passenger had smuggled gold and did not declare them at red
channel counter with an intention to evade Customs duty - Contention
that passenger was carrying 1, 05, 410 Dirham for payment of duty in
convertible foreign currency on impugned goods baseless - Instruction
vide C.B.E. & C. Instruction F. No. 495/5/92-Cus.-VI, dated 10-5-1993
clearly providing that in respect of gold seized for non-declaration, no
option to redeem same on redemption fine should be given -
Confiscation of gold bars without redemption legally sustainable -
Condition mentioned in Section 80 of Customs Act, 1962 not fulfilled -
Re-export of seized gold cannot be allowed - Penalty imposed under
Section 112 ibid upheld - Sections 77, 80, 108, 111, 112, 114 and 125 of
Customs Act, 1962 — In Re : Manoj Kumar Sharma (G.O.I.) ............... 750
— and penalty - Misdeclaration of goods - Incomplete declaration - No
investigation to establish intent to misdeclaration goods - For mis-match
between Bill of Lading and actual clearance of goods, proceedings under
Section 116 of Customs Act, 1962 to arise - Any intended misdeclaration
of quantity to succeeded only with a corresponding misdeclaration in Bill
of Lading - No evidence to such effect - Misdeclaration of goods in only
one of invoices due inadvertence and not deliberate - Competent
Authority to dispose of application for amendment of Bill of Entry -
Amendment implicit on clearance of goods after exclusion from Advance
Authorization Scheme and discharge of duty charged - No reason to
sustain confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty- Order modified
accordingly to relieve importer of burden of redemption fine and penalty
- Sections 111, 112 and 125 of Customs Act, 1962 — Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. C.C.
(Export), JNCH, Nhava Sheva, Raigad (Tri. - Mumbai) .................... 455
— and penalty on non-fulfillment of export obligation under EPCG, scope of
order by Customs when DGFT’s order is in favour of assessee - See under
EXIM ......................................... 847
— and penalty - Seizure of forex and Indian currency along with concealed
gold bars - Failure by passenger carrying to declare currency in red
channel - No foreign currency can be sent out of India or brought into the
country without permission of Reserve Bank of India - Forex (UAE
Dirham 1, 05, 410) carried by passenger was much higher than prescribed
limit under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 read with Foreign
Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations,
2000 - An attempt to smuggle foreign currency and Indian currency
‘prohibited’ and merits confiscation - Said currency fell under category of
“prohibited goods” - Currencies correctly confiscated - Keeping in view
of gravity of offence order of Commissioner (Appeals) in reducing
penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 from ` 30 lacs to ` 5 lacs
erroneous and set aside - Not case for imposition of penalty under
Section 114AA ibid and order of Commissioner (Appeals) waiving
penalty under said Section upheld - Order-in-Appeal in releasing DD
amounting to ` 12 lac meant for deposit in NRE Account and Indian
currency amounting to ` 12,500 upheld - Sections 2(33), 111(d), 111(m),
111(o) and 112 of Customs Act, 1962 — In Re : Manoj Kumar Sharma (G.O.I.) ..... 750
— Contravention of import policy - Import under licence - Date of reckoning
- Completion of import into India on entrance of goods into territorial
water of India and not date of filling of Bill of Entry - If importer
possessing licence on or before date of import, goods imported would be
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  268