Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + Commission Customs - 2016 (6) TMI Commission This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 1343 - Commission - CustomsSmuggling - high value gold jewellery (studded with diamonds) - Baggage Rules - Jurisdiction of Settlement Commission to allow re-export of the clandestinely smuggled goods - Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 Held that:- It is noteworthy that since 26-10-1989, while Section 123(2) contained ‘gold’ and ‘manufactures thereof’ items ‘diamonds’ and ‘manufactures thereof’ were deleted and this position has remained so till date - The applicants further drawing attention to the seized goods, both from the person of Ms. Vihari Sheth and from the business premises of Shri. Jiten Sheth, state that as per Department’s valuation, value of gold in the total value of seized jewellery is around 8% showing pre-eminence of diamonds in the value of ornaments seized. The jewellery has to be treated as 'manufacture of diamonds’ and out of the ambit of Section 123(2). In CCE, New Delhi v. Connaught Plaza Restaurant (P) Ltd. Case [2012 (12) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT], Hon’ble Apex Court held that the common parlance test was the extension of general principle of interpretation of statute for deciphering mind of law maker. It was an attempt to discover intention of legislature from language used by it, keeping in mind, that language is at best imperfect instrument for expression of actual human thoughts. Maintainability of application - Held that:- The Bench observes from the SCN that Revenue has not proposed any alternative classification of the goods in the SCN and therefore it cannot be said that the issue before Commission involves ‘interpretation of classification under Customs Tariff Act, 1975” and therefore bar as laid down under proviso to Section 127B(1) would not be applicable to the instant case - the Bench finds that the objections raised by Revenue relating to maintainability of the applications filed by the applicants are not sustainable and hence rejected. The Bench upholds the allegations levelled against Ms. Vihari Sheth and Shri Jiten Sheth in the SCN dated 27-1-2014 relating to premeditated acts to smuggle dutiable goods into the country without payment of appropriate duties, and to facilitate its sale. The Bench holds that the goods totally valued at ₹ 2.45 crores and ₹ 2.05,21,000/- respectively are liable for confiscation under the provisions invoked in the SCN and Ms. Vihari Sheth and Mr. Jiten Sheth liable to penalties under the provisions invoked in the SCN. The Bench settles the case of the applicants under Section 127C(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 - The immunities to the applicant/co-applicant are granted under Section 127H(1) of the Act.
|