Delhi High Court Upholds Confiscation of 2.7 kg Undeclared Gold, Says Experienced Traveller Knew Customs Rules

The Delhi High Court has upheld the confiscation of over 2.7 kilograms of gold brought into India from Dubai without declaration, observing that the petitioner's experience as an international traveller showed that he was fully aware of his obligation to declare dutiable goods

A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the adjudicating authority, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the revisional authority, which had held that the petitioner attempted to import substantial quantities of gold jewellery and biscuits without making the mandatory declaration.

The court observed that the petitioner's frequent international travel and extensive experience of residing and working in the Gulf countries belied his contention that he intended to declare the gold but was intercepted before reaching the Red Channel.

“These facts unmistakably demonstrate that the Petitioner was an experienced international traveller who was well acquainted with the customs formalities applicable to passengers arriving in India. The aforesaid circumstances lend further support to the conclusion that the Petitioner was fully aware of his obligation to declare dutiable goods before the Customs authorities upon his arrival in India,” the Court held.

The petitioner, Abdul Samad, had approached the High Court challenging the order of the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance, rejecting his revision plea against the confiscation of gold jewellery and biscuits seized from him at Delhi's Indira Gandhi International Airport in October 2013.

He also sought refund of the sale proceeds of the confiscated gold after setting aside the orders passed by the customs authorities.

According to the Customs Department, 477 gold chains weighing 2,516.5 grams and two gold biscuits weighing 100 grams each, aggregating to 2,716.5 grams were recovered from Samad. His customs declaration form disclosed “Nil”, indicating that he was not carrying any dutiable goods.

During the investigation, Samad's statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. He admitted that he had purchased the gold in Dubai for sale in India and had wrapped the jewellery and biscuits in tissue paper and adhesive tape to avoid detection.

Samad later retracted his statement after securing bail and contended before the High Court that he had intended to make the necessary declaration but was intercepted at the aerobridge before he could proceed to the Red Channel. He further argued that CCTV footage from the airport, which could have substantiated his claim, had not been preserved despite his request before the trial court.

Rejecting the contention, the Court noted that apart from Samad's “bald assertion”, there was no material to support his claim that he was intercepted before reaching the Red Channel. On the contrary, the customs declaration form filed by him recorded “Nil”.

As regards the missing CCTV footage, the Court observed that though Samad had moved an application for its preservation on October 24, 2013, no immediate direction was passed. By the time the trial court ordered preservation in April 2014, the footage had already been automatically erased in the ordinary course.

“In the aforesaid circumstances, the mere non-availability of the CCTV footage cannot, by itself, justify acceptance of the Petitioner's version that he had been intercepted at the aerobridge before reaching the Red Channel,” Court said.

The High Court also rejected Samad's contention that his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act had been obtained under coercion. It noted that the statement ran into eleven pages, bore his signatures on every page and contained extensive details about his employment history, business activities and the manner in which the gold was carried.

The Court further observed that the statement was retracted only after his release on bail and was rightly treated by the authorities as an afterthought.

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate M. C. Dhingra, Advocate MD Shahid Anwar and Advocate Mohd. Syed Affan.

For Respondents: Senior Standing Counsel Atul Tripathi, Advocate Akshay Sagar, Advocate Shubham Mishra, Senior Panel Counsel Sarika Singh and Advocate Rahul Singh for the Union of India.