IMPORTANT POINT
Mis-declaration of goods' value and purpose justifies confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962.

ORDER :(per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)

The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order passed by the respondent No.1/Joint Secretary to the Government of India dated 27.01.2005 whereby the revision application filed by the respondent No.2/Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise stood allowed by setting aside the Order-in-Appeal dated 19.02.2004 passed by the respondent No.3/Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals).

2. Heard Mr. G. Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC appearing for the respondent No.2.

3. For proper understanding of the dispute, it would be relevant at this juncture to briefly note the facts which led to filing of the instant writ petition which are as under:

3.1 The petitioner undertook a journey from Singapore to Hyderabad by flight No.MI 478 on 27.12.2002. In the baggage which the petitioner had brought, there were 99 Nos. of SD RAM 256, MB-PC 133, 200 Nos. of SD RAM 128 MB-PC 133 and 80 Nos. of Printer Memory Cards. The petitioner while bringing these goods had made the declaration to the Customs authorities declaring the value of goods at Rs.30,000/- on the Immigration Slip.

3.2 The Customs authorities upon subsequent verification of the value of the goods found that the actual price of the goods was more than Rs.4,49,000/- as compared to declaration of Rs.30,000/- made by the petitioner. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the Customs Act, 1962 (herein referred to as ‘the Act’) alleging contravention of Section 77 of the Act and the petitioner was called upon for a personal hearing, during which time the petitioner sought permission for re-export of the goods. Meanwhile, respondent No.3 vide order dated 03.02.2003 ordered for confiscation of the said goods under Section 111(d) and Section (1)(m) of the Act. The petitioner was subsequently given with the option of redeeming the same on payment of Rs.80,000/- for re-export or for home consumption. In addition, a penalty of Rs.10,000/- was also imposed. The offer of redemption was accepted by the petitioner who in turn paid the requisite fine and penalty and re-exported the goods.

3.3 The aforesaid order of the respondent No.3 which was subjected to challenge by the petitioner before respondent No.2 stood allowed. The respondent No.2 after considering the contentions put forth by the petitioner held that requirement under Section 77 of the Act was only the declaration of the products being brought under the baggage and the actual value was not what was mandatorily required under the said Act. According to respondent No.2, it was the contents of the baggage which was required to be declared to the proper officer. While allowing the said appeal, the Order-in-Original passed by the respondent No.3 was set aside. As a consequence, the petitioner moved to the Customs authorities for refund of the fine and penalty paid by him while redeeming the goods. The order of the respondent No.2 is dated 19.02.2004 in Appeal No.15/2004(H-II)Cus.

3.4 The respondent No.2 thereafter filed a revision petition under Section 129DD of the Act which was registered as F.No.380/30/B/04-RA before respondent No.1. After hearing the parties in dispute, the respondent No.1 allowed the revision petition setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.3, thereby confirming the Order-in-Original passed by the respondent No.2.

3.5 The respondent No.1 found that the quantity of goods found in the baggage was of commercial quantity which otherwise would not be permissible within the scope of the baggage rules even on payment of duty. It was also the finding of the respondent No.1 that even otherwise the petitioner was required to pay the redemption fine and penalty in terms of the instructions of the Board dated 11.04.