Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 41973
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Ziyad Rahman A. A, J
Jubin Thomas Mathew – Appellant
Versus
Joint Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 39716 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.A.Baby, Meenakshy Parvathy
For the Respondents: Sanjana R.Nair
The court upheld the adjudicating officer's discretion to deny redemption rights due to the concealment of goods, emphasizing the significance of intent in customs law.
Headnote:(A) Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 112, 114AA, and 125 - Confiscation of gold for non-declaration - Gold seized as it was concealed in luggage. Petitioner argues the denial of redemption rights, asserting duress under Section 108, while respondent cites concealment intent. The adjudicating officer's discretion upheld, supported by Supreme Court rulings. (Paras 2-14)
(B) Opportunity to redeem goods - Denial of this option upheld where evidence suggested intention to evade duty. (Paras 11-15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an engineer, purchased 600 grams of gold while traveling and was intercepted at the airport, leading to confiscation for non-declaration.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the proper application of discretion under the Customs Act, recognizing the concealment of the gold as a justifiable reason for absolute confiscation.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had a right to redeem the confiscated gold and the validity of his statement retraction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no grounds for interference in the confiscation order, emphasizing that concealment negated the petitioner’s claims of being denied the opportunity to declare the goods.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. interception and seizure of goods (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. denial of opportunity for redemption (Para 6 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. legal precedent on import conduct (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. concealment of goods and findings (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. final assessment and dismissal of petition (Para 15 , 16) |
J U D G M E N T
According to the petitioner, he was working as an Engineer in US on contract basis and his family is settled in Kerala. Petitioner used to visit the family frequently. On 19.01.2018, when the petitioner was travelling to Kerala via Singapore, he purchased 600 grams of gold having a value of 34,050 Singapore Dollars (valued Rs. 18,16,800/-) covered by Ext.P1 invoice. The petitioner purchased Canon cameras with lenses for personal use as well. On arrival at Thiruvananthapuram International Airport on 19.01.2018, before making any declaration, the ofÏcers of Air Intelligence Unit, Thiruvananthapuram International Airport, intercepted the petitioner and seized the gold and other accessories, including Canon camera and lenses.
2. According to the petitioner, interception was effected without giving the petitioner an opportunity to declare the goods. Based on the same, Ext.P2 Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner, proposing to impose a penalty under Sec.112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 , for non- declaration of gold. Even though the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 reply to the same, the respondent passed Ext.P4 Order-in- Original, by which, absolute confiscation was ordered in respect of the gold seized from the possession of the petitioner, whereas, in the case of Canon cameras and its lenses, the petitioner was granted an option to release the same on payment a fine of Rs.1 lakh under Sec.125 of the Customs Act, in addition to the appropriate duty payable on the said goods. The petitioner paid the redemption fee, and got the camera and lenses released.
3. Being aggrieved by Ext.P4, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the Commissioner Appeals, but the same was rejected as per Ext.P6. As against the same, a further revision application was submitted before the Additional Secretary New Delhi and it resulted in Ext.P7, wherein, the revision application was rejected and the order passed by the 1st respondent was confirmed. The writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances challenging Ext. P4, P6 and P7 orders. In the writ petition, the petitioner also relied on Ext.P8, yet another Order in Appeal passed in a similar appeal, wherein, the party therein was granted an opportunity to redeem the gold seized from his possession.
4. A statement has been submitted by the respondent disputing the averments contained in the writ petition and also supporting the findings in the impugned orders.
5. I have heard of Sri. M.A.Baby, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Sanjana R. Nair, the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. One of the contentions raised in the writ petition is that, the petitioner was improperly denied the opportunity of redemption, as contemplated under Sec.125 of the Customs Act, as far as the gold is concerned. Besides, the petitioner also contends that the petitioner had in fact, retracted from the statement given under Sec.108 of the Customs Act, immediately after recording the same, as the said statement was procured from the petitioner under duress.
7. On the other hand, the learned Standing for the respondent pointed out that, the absolute confiscation was ordered in respect of the gold, in view of the fact that the the gold was found to be in a concealed position, in the trolley bag and therefore the authorities concerned came to a conclusion that the petitioner never had any intention to declare the gold. The learned Standing Counsel brought to the attention of this Court the relevant findings entered into by the Original Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority, on the said question.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on the decisi
