Smuggling of Gold - What is "ingenious concealment"? - ADC instructs Adjudicating Authorities
WHAT is "ingenious concealment"?
In a recent instruction to his colleague ADC and all the Deputy Commissioners/Assistant Commissioners in the Mumbai Airport Customs, the Additional Commissioner of Customs, CSI Airport, Mumbai, states,
The term "ingenious concealment" has not been defined anywhere. However, keeping in mind the recent trend of smuggling, the interpretation ingenious concealment has been narrowed down. Now not only in cases where gold was found concealed in emergency lights, DVD players, TV, Shoes, etc. but also in cases like concealed in undergarment, specially stitched Pocket etc. are also viewed as ingenious concealment by the department. Except the cases where gold is found in pant pocket, baggage etc., all other clever concealments are treated as ingenious concealment while reviewing order.
This fact now may be kept in mind by all adjudicating authorities while issuing/Passing the adjudication order in cases involving gold smuggling .
He actually wants absolute confiscation of gold in case of ingenious concealment and that such gold should not be released on redemption fine.
Is gold kept in the underwear of a lungi clad man concealment - ingenious or otherwise?
Imagine a lungi clad passenger arriving at the airport with gold in his underwear? Is he ingeniously concealing gold? His lungi has no pockets and that is the only place where he can safely keep the gold. Is he guilty?
Can you give instructions to Adjudicating Authorities?
Is the Additional Commissioner competent to give instructions to the Adjudicating Authorities on how they should pass adjudication orders? He says he has the approval of the Principal Commissioner to issue these instructions. For that matter is the Principal Commissioner competent to give instructions on adjudication? The Adjudicating Authority is supposed to be an independent authority who should decide the case based on facts and law and not on the basis of instructions from his colleague or boss. Is this not an interference on the quasi judicial function of the adjudicating authority?