AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.75 OF 2008 Sapna Sanjeev Kohli .... Appellant Vs. The Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. .... Respondent Mr. Vikram Nankani i/b Mr. M.R. Baya for appellant. Mr. R.V. Desai, senior counsel with Mr. Suresh Kumar for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 19TH MARCH, 2009. P.C. :- 1. The appellant has challenged in this appeal judgment and order dated 25/2/2008 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Branch (for short, “the Tribunal”) whereby her appeal filed against Order-in-Original dated 28/2/2007 was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12/8/2005, the appellant arrived at Mumbai, CSI Airport from Dubai. The Customs Officer posted for baggage screening noticed some dark patches in her AJN 2 baggage. The zipper handbag belonging to the appellant was opened by her and it contained 18K gold jewelry valued at Rs.68,69,200. The appellant submitted an invoice dated 9/8/2005 issued in her name for Jewelry valued at DHS 4,21,830/- equivalent to INR 47,45,587.50 bearing “PAID” stamp on it. The purse of the appellant contained US$ 2,950/- and UAE DHS 4,600/-. The gold jewelry was seized. The cardboard carton containing jewelry boxes and the foreign currency in USD and DHS were also taken over by the Department for further investigations. 3. The appellant's statement was recorded. In her statement, she inter alia, stated that her husband is in the business of jewelry trading and he had given her foreign currencies to pay the duty for the jewelry and that jewelry was to be delivered to one Ved Prakash Arora. She stated that she was going to the bank for clarification and by mistake, she crossed the Green Channel and that she was carrying foreign currency for the payment of duty. Further, investigation was conducted and show cause notice was issued on 7/2/2006 to the appellant. 4. Adjudication proceedings were conducted and the AJN 3 Commissioner of Customs by Order-in-Original dated 28/2/2007, inter alia, ordered absolute confiscation of the seized jewelry and US$ 2,500/-. Personal penalty of Rs.4 lakhs was imposed on the appellant. 5. The appellant carried an appeal to the Tribunal and the Tribunal by the impugned order reduced the penalty to Rs.2 lakhs. The Tribunal allowed redemption of the confiscated gold jewelery on payment of fine of Rs.10 lakhs. The appellant has challenged the said order. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant at some length. He submitted that import of gold jewelery is freely permissible and, hence, it is not liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. He further submitted that there was no mis-declaration or violation of Section 77 of the Customs Act inasmuch as the appellant was carrying the amount for payment of customs duty and there was no assessment of either value or the duty payable on the said jewelry. The jewelry was seized directly. Hence, it was not liable for confiscation under Section 111(f) read with Section 77 of the Customs Act. He AJN 4 submitted that the benefit of Notification No.31/2003-Cus dated 1/3/2003 is wrongly denied to the appellant. According to learned counsel, the appeal involves substantial questions of law which deserve consideration of this court. 7. We are not impressed by these submissions of learned counsel. After going through the relevant material, the Tribunal has observed that the appellant's contention that she had no intention of clearing the goods without payment of duty and that she was going to the bank to enquire about the rate of duty applicable and that she was carrying US Dollars, UAE Dirhams and international credit cards for the purpose of payment of duty on the said goods does not appear to be tenable. The Tribunal has further observed that if the appellant wanted any further clarification, she should have asked the Customs Officer on duty and the bank is not concerned with the clearance of gold jewelery. It is further observed that the appellant has not declared the possession of gold on Customs Clearance Card on arrival as required under Section 77 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal has further observed that the appellant is a frequent traveller and is well aware of the Customs Rules as she, as per her own admission, AJN 5 had already cleared gold at Delhi International Airport, previously for which she paid duty. 8. We find these observations of the Tribunal to be perfectly justified. If the appellant was a frequent traveller, her case that she, by mistake, crossed the Green Channel and that as she was not aware of the amount of duty to be paid; that she wanted to make enquiry with the bank is on the face of it, untenable and clearly an afterthought. Besides, the Tribunal has reduced the penalty and allowed release of gold on payment of redemption fine. The gold has already been redeemed. In the circumstances, we find that no case is made out for interference with the impugned order. Appeal is dismissed. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [J.P. DEVADHAR, J.]