The main legal point established in the judgment is that a domestic passenger can get the return of seized gold on deposit of 50% duty for the value of the gold, following the precedent set by a Division Bench judgment.

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent herein to release and return 1 No of Gold Bar and 3 Nos. of Gold Cut Pieces, totally weighing 446 grams, covered by O.S.No.1183/2015-AIU.

2. According to the petitioner, he is residing in Chennai and working in Cine Field. On 23.10.2015, he boarded Flight No.IX681 Air India Express at Trichy Airport at 12.30 hrs to return to Chennai. The petitioner arrived at Chennai Airport and he, being a Domestic Passenger, on his arrival, even before going before the table, the petitioner was taken to Air Intelligence Unit Room, situated in the Arrival Hall and according to the petitioner, the authorities started threatening him, even though the petitioner had informed before the Airport Customs Officers that he is in possession of 1 Gold Bar and 3 Nos. of Gold Cut Pieces, totally weighing 446 grams.

3. According to the petitioner, the respondents threatened the petitioner to sign the statement, typed by the officers and only after signing the statement, they had allowed the petitioner to go outside. According to the petitioner, the statement taken from him, is not his voluntary statement and his signature was taken under threat and coercion. Thereafter, the petitioner had made request for release of gold, confirming that he is the owner of such goods, but, the respondents have not returned the gold nor given any Show Cause Notice nor orders has been passed till date. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to get release of the gold on payment of duty.

4. Further, according to the petitioner, he is a Domestic Passenger and he had boarded only at Trichy Airport and he is not a passenger like others, who are coming from other Foreign Country and arriving in India Airport and therefore, the detention of the gold from Domestic Passenger by the second respondent is illegal.

5. In the counter, filed by the respondents, they have stated that the petitioner had not declared the gold in his domestic passenger declaration card and that he attempted to smuggle the gold, by not declaring the same and by way concealing them, the passenger has neither declared nor was in possession of any valid permit and as he was not eligible to bring the gold, the same was seized, along with the material objects, used for concealing the gold. Further, the respondents have stated that in the statement, recorded before the Customs, the petitioner had stated that an unknown person had given him the gold on board the flight, to be smuggled out of Chennai Airport by concealing and not declaring to Customs and to be handed over to a received outside Chennai Airport, for which, he was offered Rs.6,000/-.

6. Admittedly, the flight had arrived at Chennai from Singapore via Trichy. Further, the respondents have stated that the petitioner did not possess any valid documents for the gold and he had requested vide his letter dated 23.10.2015 that the case may be adjudicated and also for waiver of issue of show cause notice.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Sec.2 (23) of the Customs Act, 1962 ‘import’ means bringing to India from a place outside India and as per Sec.2(3) of the Act ‘smuggling’ means any act or omission which will render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 or Section 113. Under Sec.111, the goods mentioned in the said Section brought from a place outside India shall be liable to confiscation.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that under Sec.110-A, Any goods, documents or things seized under Section 110, may, pending the order of the adjudicating authority, be released to the owner on taking a bond from him in the proper form with such security and conditions as the adjudicating authority may require. The learned counsel also submitted that when the petitioner had travelled only from Trichy to Chennai, he cannot be termed as an International Passenger and that he is only a domestic