9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smuggle out cut and polished diamonds and diamond bead necklaces valued at Rs. 18,42,875/- assorted foreign currency equivalent to Indian Rs. 57975/- and Indian currency of Rs. 8500/-. In his statement he admitted having purchased these diamonds on credit and that he wanted to sell them in Kuwait for profit. He admitted that on earlier occasion also he had smuggled out diamonds. He also admitted that sale proceeds on those occasions were rented through unauthorised channels. 2.1 The lower authority ordered confiscation of the impugned goods with option to redeem the redemption fine of Rs. 7,50,000/- and penalty of Rs. 3,75,000/- was also imposed on the appellant. 3. Being aggrieved with the orders of the adjudicating authority, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt with English language, his statements were recorded in English and he was forced to sign them under duress, threat and promise by the investigating officers, without explaining the contents thereof. Para 5 of the affidavit dated 28-10-2004 has not been considered by the authorities, which reads as follows :- "5. I say that I am not aware of the contents of the said pages purported as my statement, and I say that anything contrary to what is stated in this affidavit shall not be deemed as my true and voluntary statement." The applicant in his affidavit also narrated the events as happened at the time of interception and the explanation provided by him to AIU officers. The manner in which the purported Panchanama was recorded, as we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... channels are without any substance and are ipsi dixit of the investigating officer, which are mechanically endorsed without any cogent reason, by the original authority as well as the appellate authority. 3.5 That the submissions of the applicant regarding the value of the seized goods were also rejected without any verification and application of mind on the said aspect. The applicant has informed that 211.41 carats of cut and polished diamonds valued at USD 24,955.41 (i.e. less than USD 25,000 were for exports to M/s. My Fair Lady Jewellery, Kuwait. He had also informed that 632.01 carats of "RD Cut Wht. Diamonds S1 and Diamond Mala" of total value Rs. 4,79,171.25 were being carried for exports as gifts for the various Gems and Jew ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limits and therefore he was under a bona fide belief that no declaration was required. Contention regarding after though in bring in remittance for the diamonds is not based on any sound reasoning but is a finding based on surmises and conjectures. Non-mentioning, by the Bank, in the Foreign Inward Remittance Advice, of the purpose of remittance cannot lead to a conclusion that the remittance was an afterthought or that the banker did not know the reason for receipt of the remittance. It was only an intimation of inward remittance given by bank to the applicant. 3.7 That the submissions regarding confiscation of Indian currency of Rs. 8,500/- made in the reply and appeal have not been considered at all in the impugned order-in-appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Personal hearing in these cases were fixed on 30-9-09 which was attended by Shri C. Hari Shankar and Shri Jagdish N. Advocates for and on behalf of all the applicant wherein they re-iterated the grounds of Revision Application and also submitted a brief written submissions on behalf of the applicant. 5. Government has carefully gone through the case records including Order-in-Appeal, Order-in-Original and relevant provisions of Acts/Rules as applicable in this case. 6. It is observed that applicant attempted to export illegally the cut and polished diamonds and diamond bead necklaces along with some Indian currency which he had failed to declare before the Customs authorities and to follow the proper procedure for export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orts are covered under Notification No. FEMA 116/2004/RB, dated 25-3-04 r/w above mentioned EXIM Policy provisions which exempts exports goods of value not exceeding US $ 25,000 and gifts of value not exceeding Rs. 5,00,000/- from filing GR/PP declarations. The said Notification and policy provisions are not applicable to him as the value of goods in this case exceeding US$ 25,000. In fact he has made two categories of goods to seek shelter under the said notification. Total value of the goods is Rs. 18,42,875/- (US$ 40907) and therefore the said notification and other policy provision "cited by applicant are not applicable in the case of applicant. 8. Further, applicant has stated that department has assessed the value on higher side ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
