Judgment :- On 29th March, 1967, the petitioner who is a citizen of Malaya, arrived from Singapore at the Madras Air Port with a baggage and wearing certain jewels. On 12-7-1967, a notice was issued to him by the Collector of Custom under Section 12A of the Customs Act 1962 asking him to show cause why penalty under Section 112 of the Act should not be imposed on him for alleged unauthorised importation of certain articles. In the show cause notice it was stated that when the petitioner was questioned, he declared that he was in possession of six items of jewellery and watches that the stones set in one of the items were not diamonds, but were imitation stones and that on a scrutiny the stones set in the jewellery items, were found to be real diamonds. The notice further stated thereupon the petitioner was subjected to a personal search as a result of which four items of gold were recovered that on a thorough examination of his baggage four more items of goods were recovered that all the aforesaid items of jewellery were seized under a mahazar and that the petitioner imported the gold and diamond jewellery unauthorisedly in contravention of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and Import and Export Control Act, 1947 and the Customs Act 196 2. The petitioner was asked to show cause why the undeclared items should not be confiscated under Section 111 (d) of the Custom Act, why the mis-declared items are as containing stones of inferior quality should not be confiscated under Section 111 (d) and (m) of the said Act and why the items found in the baggage should not be confiscated for no declaration. To this notice, the petitioner submitted an explanation which the Collector of Customs received on 26-9-1967. In that explanation he stated that when he arrived in India he was wearing only the usual gold buttons, gold cufflinks and a belt with buckle of gold, that he always used to carry spares of buttons, cufflinks etc. To this notice, the petitioner submitted an explanation which the Collector of Customs received on 26-9-1967. In that explanation he stated that when he arrived in India he was wearing only the usual gold buttons, gold cufflinks and a belt with buckle of gold, that he always used to carry spares of buttons, cufflinks etc. for use in India, that on his arrival in India he was surrounded by Customs Officers and was asked several questions, that being a sick man and being not used to any strain his mind was confused as a result of constant questioning and interrogation that he did not import any item unauthorisedly and that the articles might be returned to him for being taken back by him on his return to Malaya.2The petitioner was given a personal hearing and he . was assisted by his counsel who cross-examined the officers who affected the seizure of the items from the petitioner. On a consideration of the contentions put forward on behalf of the petitioner by his counsel the Collector of Customs found that the explanation was not acceptable, that the jewels did not show any sign of use, that the ornaments had been crudely made primarily intended for the gold value and that the gold and jewellery were worth Rs. 53, 813.14. The Collector accordingly passed an order of confiscation of 29 pieces of gold items and directed the release of a wrist watch on payment of duty and directed the release of two other wrist watches free of duty and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 5000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi. That appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner preferred a revision to the Government of India. That revision also having been dismissed the petitioner has filed the writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Collector of Customs as confirmed in appeal and revision. 3Mr. Rajan, representing Mr. Ramaswami, counsel for . the petitioner, raised two main contentions in support of this petition. That revision also having been dismissed the petitioner has filed the writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Collector of Customs as confirmed in appeal and revision. 3Mr. Rajan, representing Mr. Ramaswami, counsel for . the petitioner, raised two main contentions in support of this petition. The first contention was that though at the earliest opportunity the petitioner stated that the articles seized from him might be returned to him for being taken back by him on his return to Malaya, neither the Collector nor the appellate authority, nor the Government of India specially dealt with this matter and passed an order as required under Section 80 of the Customs Act. The argument was that if this provision had been kept in view, the petitioner would have been entitled at least to a return of five out of six items in respect of which the petitioner was said to have made a wrong declaration. 4.The second contention is that it cannot be said that the petitioner imported unauthorisedly any article into India so as to attract the penal provisions of the Act. The contention is that after all what has been carried by the petitioner consisted of only small articles like buttons, belt, watch, etc. and that having regard to the status of the petitioner his explanation that he was carrying them for his personal use should have been accepted. Incidentally, it was also contended that the Collector was wrong in placing reliance upon the alleged confessional statement of the petitioner recorded from him on 20-3-1967 when he is said to have declared that the stones found in the wrist strap were only imitation stones and not diamonds. 5.I am convinced that none of the foregoing contentions has any sub-stance. The seizure of the articles from the petitioner was on 23-9-1967. The very next day, the petitioner gave a statement before a customs officer who recorded in English. The petitioner signed it after endorsing that he read over the statement and found it to be correct. In that statement the petitioner stated: "I declared these stones are imitation stones and not diamonds". The very next day, the petitioner gave a statement before a customs officer who recorded in English. The petitioner signed it after endorsing that he read over the statement and found it to be correct. In that statement the petitioner stated: "I declared these stones are imitation stones and not diamonds". Then he proceeded to state what happened after he made the declaration and referred to the interrogation by the officers with regard to the ornaments worn by him and also with regard to the articles found in his baggage. In the concluding portion of his statement he said: "I bought this to India for personal use. I request you to kindly excuse me for this fault. I will not do this again. If there is any import duty to be paid I am willing to pay" * . The counsel for the petitioner elaborately cross-examined the three officers who participated in the recovery of the articles from the petitioner. One of the mahazar witnesses was also elaborately cross-examined. The Collector of Customs discussed the evidence in detail and observed that he himself inspected the jewels in the presence of the petitioner and his counsel and did not find any sign of use. The Collector also observed that the ornaments were all made crudely primarily intended for its gold value. On a consideration of the evidence he observed that the petitioner had broken the law rather badly. No doubt, he did not explicitly deal with the request of the petitioner for handing over the articles to him for being taken back on his return journey to Malaya. Mr. Rajan counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance upon Section 80, contended that the Collector failed to exercise his jurisdiction under the section, which reads. "80. TEMPORARY DETENTION OF BAGGAGE: Where the baggage of a passenger contains any article which is dutiable or the import of which is prohibited and in respect of which true declaration has been made under Section 77, the proper officer may, at the request, of the passenger, detain such article for the purpose of being returned to him on his leaving India" * . It would be seen from the above section that the question of temporary detention of the baggage for the purpose of being returned to the passenger would arise only in respect of the true declaration made under Section 77. It would be seen from the above section that the question of temporary detention of the baggage for the purpose of being returned to the passenger would arise only in respect of the true declaration made under Section 77. The very act attributed to the petitioner is that he made a false declaration with regard to the stones found in the watch strap, the case of the department being that the petitioner declared the stones to be imitation stones, whereas the stones, on examination were found to be real diamonds. Thus, on the evidence the Collector was of the opinion that the petitioner made a false declaration with regard to one of the items. Four other items were seized from his person and four other items were seized from his baggage as undeclared items. No doubt, the alleged representation by the petitioner with regard the nature of the stones found in the gold watch strap was only oral. That such a representation was made by the petitioner was unambiguously admitted by him in his statement. The petitioner tried to get over this admission in his explanation by stating that being a sick man and not being used to strain his mind was confused as a result of constant questioning. Though this version was put forward in the explanation to the charge memo, the petitioner made no such averment when he wrote on 23-7-1967 requesting for a personal hearing with reference to the charge memo. In that letter, he requested for permission to cross-examine the officers mentioned therein. He also stated that there was no mis-declaration. The accusation made in the charge memo was denied. But at that time he did not say that the statement recorded from him was taken when he was in a confused state of mind and forced out of him by constant questioning. The appellate authority found that this explanation was an after thought. I do not see any sufficient ground to interfere with that finding.6The contention is that the Collector failed to . exercise his discretion under Section 80 and omitted to pass orders with reference to the request of the petitioner to return the articles to him for being taken back on his leaving India. I do not see any sufficient ground to interfere with that finding.6The contention is that the Collector failed to . exercise his discretion under Section 80 and omitted to pass orders with reference to the request of the petitioner to return the articles to him for being taken back on his leaving India. It would be seen from the language of Section 80 extracted already that it would come into operation only in a case where a true declaration had been made under Section 77. The facts of this case show that the petitioner made a false declaration. It is only on that basis that a further search was made of the person of the petitioner and his baggage was examined. Therefore, the fact that the Collector did not make a specific order rejecting the request of the petitioner for returning the goods on leaving India does not affect his conclusion in any way. 7.Mr. Rajan next contended that having regard to the circumstances under which the articles were seized from the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner imported any article so as to attract the penal provisions of the Act. His argument was that after all the articles seized are articles of personal use and constant wearing. This argument is not tenable. 'Import' is defined in Section 2 (23) of the Customs Act as meaning bringing into India from a place outside India. What the petitioner did was 'import' he having brought the articles in question into India from a place outside India. The fact that the articles are such that one may ordinarily put to daily use is totally irrelevant when considering the question whether the petitioner imported the articles in contravention of the Act. 8.I see no ground to interfere.