Page 143 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

2020 ] SEGUDAWOOD AMEER v. ADDL. COMMR. OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT), CHENNAI 477

(f) …………………….
(g) …………………….
(h) …………………….
(i) …………………….
(j) …………………….
(k) …………………….
(l) any dutiable or prohibited goods which are not included or are in ex-
cess of those included in the entry made under this Act, or in the case
of baggage in the declaration made under Section 77;
(m) any goods which do not correspond in respect of value or in any other
particular with the entry made under this Act or in the case of bag-
gage with the declaration made under Section 77 in respect thereof, or
in the case of goods under transhipment, with the declaration for
transhipment referred to in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 54;
(n) …………………….
(o) …………………….
(p) …………………….
33. Since the petitioner failed to declare gold chains numbering 32, they
were confiscated and the petitioner was liable for penalty and redemption fine
under Sections 112(a) and 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. To avail the benefit of
the Customs Notification No. 31/2003-Cus., dated 1-3-2003, the petitioner was
not only required to declare the quantity of gold carried by him in person but
also was required to pay the Customs duty in foreign exchange. This was not
done by the petitioner.
34. Though, the petitioner had given a statement that he was carrying
the gold for a person to be delivered to an unknown person for a sum of
Rs. 3,000/- yet the benefit of Customs Notification No. 31/2003-Cus., dated 1-3-
2003 has been given to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent Commissioner of
Customs (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. C. Cus. No. 171 of 2012, dated 20-
3-2012.
35. No further appeal/revision was filed by the respondents against
the order of the 2nd respondent, even though the petitioner had not established
by any documents to substantiate that 32 numbers of gold chain were purchased
by him in Singapore. Therefore, the benefit of Customs Notification No. 31/2003-
Cus., dated 1-3-2003 ought not to have been extended.
36. The petitioner has also since paid the Customs duty and the penalty
and redemption fine on 2-8-2012 after the 2nd respondent Commissioner of Cus-
toms (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal vide Order-in-Appeal Cus. No.
171/2012, dated 20-3-2012.
37. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) reduced the penalty by
50% from Rs. 38,000/- to Rs. 19,000/- and the redemption fine of Rs. 1,92,000/- to
1,55,000/-.
38. Both the original authority the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
have justified the imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act,
1962 without proper discussion as to under which of sub-clause of the aforesaid
Section penalty was to be imposed.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  143