Having a comprehensive understanding of the penalties and sentences under the Customs Act, 1962, holds a paramount importance for the persons confronting legal charges for gold smuggling at Delhi Airport or Terminal. This blog will provide specific sections from the Act explaining the different types of consequences a person could face for gold smuggling cases, including the fines, imprisonment terms, and other non-monetary punishments.

Following is discussed a list of penalties and sentences which could be provided under the Customs Act of 1962:
• Section 123 of the said Act states that in the cases of gold smuggling, where the gold is seized, the burden of proving that the gold is not a smuggled good is upon the person from the possession of whom that gold was seized, or the person who claims to be the owner of that gold.
• In order to prevent gold smuggling at the Delhi Airport, a notification can be issued under Section 11 of the Act in the Official Gazette prohibiting the importation or exportation of goods, including gold. This prohibition can be either absolute or subject to certain clearing conditions, as the Central Government deems fit.
• Section 104 of the said Act states that the customs officer has the power to arrest any person accused of gold smuggling at Delhi Airport if he has reason to believe that the accused has committed such offence and inform the accused person of the grounds on which he is arrested. The order of arrest shall be given by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs. If the person is arrested under an offence related to any prohibited goods or evasion of duty exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs, then the person can be arrested without a warrant. And once arrested, the accused person shall be presented before the Magistrate without any unnecessary delay. Under certain scenarios, the person could get arrested under a non-bailable offence as well.
• Under Section 101 of the Act, a customs officer has the power to search any person if he suspects that the person is carrying any goods, including gold, and those goods are liable to be confiscated. And if the officer finds those goods, then as per Section 110 of the Act, the proper officer can seize those goods, and a notice will be given within 6 months of such seizure; otherwise, those goods have to be returned to the person from whom they were confiscated. And if the gold is smuggled from outside India in any of the manners described in Section 111 of the Act, then that gold would be confiscated, as that would be considered an improper import of gold.
• Section 112 and Section 114 of the said Act prescribe penalties for an attempt to improper importation and attempt to improper export of goods, including gold. The penalties include varied fines depending upon the act or omission done, which render the gold liable to be confiscated.
• Whoever makes, signs, or uses any false declaration or false document which could be used for smuggling gold at the Delhi Airport and has knowledge about the same as well could be sentenced to imprisonment up to 2 years along with a fine as per Section 132 of the Act. A similar provision exists within Section 114-AA of this Act, which imposes a maximum penalty amounting to five times the value of the goods.
• If the gold loaded in a conveyance for importing to India does not get unloaded at the place of its destination in India or gets unloaded in short of the quantity as required to be unloaded, then the person-in-charge of the concerned conveyance could be liable to pay a penalty up to twice the amount of duty that would have been charged on the goods not unloaded or the deficient goods. Section 116 of the Act discussed this provision.
• If any person obstructs any customs officer from performing his duty as conferred by this Act, which could include interception and seizure of smuggled gold at Delhi Airport, then that person can be sentenced with imprisonment up to 2 years along with a fine as per Section 133 of the Act.
• If the gold smuggling is done by the accused person by any fraudulent evasion or attempt of evasion of any duty required to pay, then also the accused person will be liable to monetary penalty, along with imprisonment of terms discussed under Section 135 of the Act.
• If any person commits any other offence under this Act by contravening any provision or failure to comply with any provision of this Act, for which there is no express penalty elsewhere, then that person can be made liable to a penalty of maximum Rs. 1 lakh.

In the case of Air Customs v. Begaim Akynova W.P. (CRL.) 1974/2021 decided by the Delhi High Court, the accused respondent himself pleaded guilty to the offences under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 in the case of gold smuggling. The investigation in this case also revealed that the accused knowingly attempted to smuggle gold, which is an offence as per Section 11-A of the same Act. The Court finalized its decision by agreeing that plea bargaining is applicable for offences under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act and declared the respondent guilty with punishment of imprisonment and fine.

In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Natwarlal Damodardas Soni 1980 AIR 593, the Supreme Court of India held that in scenarios where there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish that the gold was smuggled, it would be enough to hold the accused guilty of the charges under Section 135(1)(a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, even if the prosecution is unable to prove the provisions of Section 123 of the same Act.