The evidence established that passenger declarations were false and a deliberate scheme to evade customs duty, justifying confiscation of goods under the Customs Act.

JUDGMENT :

ANITA SUMANTH, J.

1. This common order disposes 16 Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, where the challenge is to a common order dated 24.12.2009 of the Customs, Excise and Service tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (in short 'Tribunal'/'Cestat').

2. We have heard Mr.B.Satish Sundar, learned counsel appearing for Mr.A.Ganesh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel for R2/Customs Department.

3. The genesis of the proceedings are the events of 07.12.2007 and thereafter, when the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), based on intelligence gathered by them, commenced operations in the arrival hall of the Anna International Airport, Chennai in terms of the provisions of the CUSTOMS ACT , 1962 ('Act'). The Customs Officers were requested to be witness to the proceedings.

4. Intelligence had been received by the DRI to the effect that certain individuals were engaged in smuggling of gold jewellery from Singapore to India with accomplices. Their modus operandi was to engage the services of passengers on Chennai-bound flights from Singapore who had stayed abroad for more than six months on work permit (‘eligible passengers’). Their associates in Singapore would handover parcels containing gold jewellery to the eligible passengers and the individuals would have the same collected on their arrival in Chennai.

5. The passengers would be instructed not to declare the gold jewellery and to pass through the green channel. On exiting the terminal, they were asked to handover the parcels to persons in a designated vehicle, the number of which was furnished to them in advance.

6. Having coming to know of the proposed modus operandi, the officers arrived at the Airport and, as expected, found a Toyota Qualis bearing Registration No.TN 04 M 9595 (‘vehicle’) in the designated location. Enquiry was caused and the occupants of the vehicle stated that they were employed by one Ramesh, Proprietor of Abirami Jewellers, Chennai, a wholesaler in gold jewellery (‘Proprietor’).

7. The vehicle was searched and various materials and incriminating documents were found. This included lists of names, passport numbers, photographs and Indian currency. One, Lakshmi Narayanan, an occupant of the vehicle, confessed that the details on the lists related to passengers who would be carrying packets of gold jewellery and Singapore dollars (‘SGD’/‘forex’). Upon receipt of the gold and foreign currency, the INR in their possession was to be paid to those passengers as carrying charges.

8. 12 passengers were intercepted on flight IX681 on 07.12.2007 and one passenger was intercepted on flight IC556 on 07.12.2007. On verification of the materials carried by the passengers, the officers formed a reasonable belief that the documents and the currency were incriminatory and seized the same under the relevant provisions of the Act.

9. Upon obtaining permission from the Airport Manager for the entry of the occupants of the vehicle, they were positioned in the arrival lounge. The first passenger who arrived was Muthali Pachamuthu. The aforesaid passenger and one, P.Ramatchandiran Manicame, have not filed appeals challenging the proceedings.

10. Muthali Pachamuthu was searched following due process and found to be in possession of 2 polythene packets containing gold jewellery and 500 SGD. The passenger confirmed having collected the gold and forex from an anonymous person in the Singapore airport, whose physical characteristics alone he was able to recount.

11. His instructions were that he would be paid Rs.2,500/- by a person at the Chennai Airport, who would identify him and show him his photograph taken at the time of handing over of the