Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2020 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 654 - AT - CustomsClandestine Removal - Absolute Confiscation - Silver - Gold - shortage of goods - notification no.GO 2665 (E) in the Gazette - contravention of the provisions of SEZ Act, 2005 read with the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 - demand based on statement of various persons - corroboration of statements - HELD THAT:- Prior to 9.8.2016 when vide notification no.GO 2665 (E) in the Gazette, the Government in exercise of the powers under sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the SEZ Act, notified the offences contained in Sections 111, 113 and 115 etc of the Customs Act, 1962, as offence under the SEZ Act. Thus, prior to 9.8.2016, Section 111 of the Customs Act is not attracted, when admittedly, the incidence of seizure and inspection was on 3/4th August, 2016. Further, a Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/S CHARISMA JEWELLERY PVT LTD., SHEELU MATHAI VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AIRPORT, MUMBAI [2016 (8) TMI 178 - CESTAT MUMBAI] under the fact held that one Shri Abhishekh Parikh, who was found carrying gold pieces without valid documents while exiting from SEEPZ - Sub-Economic Zone. The said person had a daily entry pass for M/s.Charishma Jewellery, a unit in SEZ and a permanent entry pass as employee of Diastar Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. The said Abhishekh Parikh had produced a sale invoice issued by a unit situated outside SEZ, which is a group company of Charisma Jewellery. The appellant had given a cogent explanation at the time of seizure and also the said explanation was supported by the statement of Proprietor of Tarkesh Art Jewellery. Further, the statement has been corroborated with cogent evidence of the statement of karigar as regards shortage of silver. Further, the shortage of gold has also been supported by the cogent explanation which has not been found to be untrue. The contention of the urgency to manufacture silver jewellery is also supported by proforma invoice for sale in favour of Sun Shine Ltd., Hong Kong. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|