Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + CGOVT Customs - 2018 (4) TMI CGOVT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1658 - CGOVT - CustomsRedemption of confiscated goods - Gold - revision application is filed mainly on the grounds that the applicant had brought the gold for self use only from Dubai, gold was not concealed, it was declared at the red channel, his actions/omissions are not covered under Sections 111(d), (l) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, therefore, the gold has been wrongly confiscated - Held that:- The applicant’s request for re-export of the confiscated gold is also not maintainable as this request was not placed before the Commissioner (Appeals) as per order-in-appeal and even in the revision application no such claim has been made. The Government being the revisionary authority only, the scope of revision application has to be restricted to the correctness of the order in the light of factual and legal background of the case considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) and not beyond it. Since the request of re-export was not made before Commissioner (Appeals) and he did not have any occasion to consider this aspect, this request made before the Government for the first time cannot be entertained in the revisionary proceeding. Even otherwise also the request for re-export can be permitted under Section 80 of the Customs Act, 1962 only when the passenger intended to return from India to the foreign country along with detained goods after a short visit to India as a tourist or otherwise. But in the instant case the applicant is an Indian citizen residing in Delhi and had gone to Dubai for a short visit of two months only. Thus he did not return from India to Dubai after a short visit as envisaged in Section 80 of the Customs Act and thereby there is no rational for re-exporting the gold to Dubai where he or his family is not presently staying. Government does not find any fault in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) - revision application rejected.
|