Judgment:
1.These two appeals arise out of the same order and are therefore dealt with vide this common order. The appellants were not present in spite of notice. The appeals are therefore decided on the strength of the documentary evidence.
2. Mrs. Balkish Aboobaker was the passenger, who came to Bombay from Dubai. I na formal declaration she failed to declare crude gold jewellery valued at Rs.2,62,080/- and other goods valued at Rs.25,615/-. These goods were confiscated and the penalty of Rs.30,000/- was imposed upon her. The second appellant Shri Yusuf Aboobaker was waiting outside to receive her. In his statement he claimed that the husband of Mrs. Balkish Aboobaker had called him from Dubai and had requested him to meet her. In the belief that the passenger was carried dutiable goods, he had brought a sum of Rs.14,400/- for payment of duty. The penalty of Rs.15,000/- was imposed upon him also. These appeals arise out of this order.
3. As far as Smt. Balkish Aboobaker is concerned the findings of the concealment of jewellery as also her own admission are not contested.
The orders of confiscation and of penalty are upheld and her appeal is dismissed. As regards Shri Yusuf Aboobaker, I find that he had not in any manner assisted. Smt Balkish Aboobaker, I also do not find any knowledge on his part as to the attempt to smuggle the jewellery by Smt. Balkish Aboobaker. The orders of imposition of penalty upon him do not survive. His appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.