Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (7) TMI 547 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

2016 (7) TMI 547 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA - TMI - Confiscation of gold jewellery brought in commercial quantity - Benefit of Baggage Rules denied - confiscated under Section 111 (d),(l),(m) & (o) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of Foreign Trade (D&R) Act, 1992 - the applicant tried earnestly to produce all the purchase bills available with her to prove her contention that the jewellery seized by the Customs at Madurai Airport are old jewellery being used by her. - she admitted the m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ge Rules issued thereunder particularly if the passenger has lived abroad for less than one year. - The applicant has also contended that the goods seized by the Customs authorities did not only belong to her but also belonged to her relatives and free allowances were not given to them by the Customs authorities. In this regard, Government notes that in the present case the duty free allowance is not applicable to the applicant as per Baggage Rules, 1998. In the instant case, the applicant h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Central Excise (Appeals) Madurai, with respect to Order-in-Original No. O.S.37/2013 dated 09.07.2013 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Madurai. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Smt. N. Auxcelia, wife of Shri Joseph Edin, holder of Indian Passport No. K 3473120 travelled from Srilanka to India by flight no. SG 3316 and arrived at Madurai Airport on 09.07.2013. The gold jewellery as detailed below was placed under detention/seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 19 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2258.00 3. Stone studded necklace-1 23.12 58,888.00 4. 2 chains 96.13 244848.00 TOTAL 190.46 485111.00 2.1 On tendering the request for waiver of Show Cause Notice by the applicant the case was spot adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Airport) after due process of law vide Order-in-Original No. O.S.37 dated 09.07.2013 ordering the following:- (i) confiscation of goods valued at ₹ 4,85,111/- under Section Ill(d),(l),(m) & (o) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application under Section 129DD of Customs Act, 1962 before Central Government on the following grounds:- 4.1 That the orders of original authority and appellate authority are not maintainable on facts and law. 4.2 That both the authorities have failed to appreciate and consider the facts that most of the articles are used ones except 4 bangles, one pair of ear ring and pendent(stone studded), which wer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ocial standing. 4.4 That the observation of the Commissioner(Appeals) that the applicant could not produce corroborative evidence to prove her case is false and against the records produced. Moreover, he had not specified any reason and analysis as to how he could not corroborate. The remarks are general and biased. 4.5 That the wedding invitation, purchase bills, and the marks bear on the ornaments are substantial in nature and genuine evidence to prove the case of the applicant. That these fac .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

4 pairs of ear rings, one necklace in her possession for own use, more so in the circumstances, when there are 5 members of family combined in a journey. That necklace belongs to her daughter and one chain belongs to her husband. Some of the earrings belong to her mother in law. 4.8 That the acts of the original authority is high handed and biased. He even did not think, the true weight of gold should be arrived after reducing the weight of the stones and checking the purity of the gold. 4.9 Th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

enuine make, markings, comparison with bills, assaying(Appraiser) by authorized persons and release the goods early. 5. A show cause notice was also issued to the Respondent Commissionerate on 14.03.2016, in response to which the following submissions have been made:- 5.1 That the applicant in her grounds of appeal stated that the goods brought by her were used one and the authorities who passed the orders had failed to notice the same. That the contention of the applicant is not sustainable as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he jewellery seized by the Customs at Madurai Airport are old jewellery being used by her. Though the photocopies of the bills furnished by her before the appellate authority bear the applicant's name, it does not tally with the quantity of the goods seized. Because in the detention receipt in O.S. no. 37/2013 dated 09.07.2013, the weight of the 4 bangles had been shown as 48 grams whereas the tax invoice dated 25.06.2013 of M/S Khazana Jewellery, shows the weight of 4 fancy bangles as 41.94 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er leaving India are subject to clearance by Customs Authorities. Only bonafide baggage is allowed to be cleared by the passengers. There is a procedure prescribed whereby the passengers leaving India can take the export certificate for the various high value items such as camera, video camera as well as jewellery from Customs Authorities. Such an export certificate facilitates re-importation of such goods while bringing back the things to India as no duty is charged. The applicant failed to do .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

residing abroad for over 1 year is a//owed to bring jewellery free of duty in bonafide baggage up to an aggregate value of ₹ 50000/in the case ofa ma/e passenger or ₹ 1, 00, 000/- in the case of a female passenger. [or] Ru/e 3: Any passenger of Indian Origin holding a valid passport if coming to India after stay abroad for more than 3 days is allowed free of duty excluding jewellery. In the instant case, the applicant had not stayed abroad within stipulated time period, both the cond .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ce all the purchase bills available with her to prove her claim that the jewellery detained by the Customs at Madurai, Airport are old jewellery being used by her (the purchase bills produced being in her name), it is also true that the bills produced by her do not tally with the seized articles, as held by the Commissioner (Appeals). The order passed by the Appellate Authority is legal and proper. 6. Personal hearing scheduled in this case on 04.04.2016 and was attended by Shri Abdul Nazeer, Ad .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the bangles belonged to her, the chain was of her husband's (more than 10 years old), the necklace of her daughter and studs are of her mother-in-law. 7. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal and written submissions made in response to the hearing. 8. On perusal of records, Government observes that the applicant travelled from Srilanka to India and arrived at Madurai Airport on 09.07.2013. On examining of her hand b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dicated by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Airport) who vide Order-in-Original No. O.S.37 dated 09.07.2013 ordered for confiscation of goods valued at ₹ 4,85,111/- under Section Ill(d),(l),(m) & (o) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of Foreign Trade (D&R), Act 1992, with an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 1000/- in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d the mistake of not obtaining the export certificate from the Customs authorities in respect of impugned gold jewellery. Government observes that as rightly observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) the photocopies of the bills furnished by her do not tally with the quantity of the goods seized. The weight of the 4 bangles had been shown as 48 grams whereas the tax invoice dated 25.06.2013 of M/S Khazana Jewellery, Tirunelveli shows the weight of the 4 fancy bangles as 41.940 grams. Further while .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oms at the time of departure due to ignorance of law does not hold good as it is a well settled position of law that ignorance cannot be an excuse to escape for not conforming to law. 11. Government observes that in terms of Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962, the owner of any baggage will make a declaration of its contents to the Customs officer. In this -case gold weighing 190.46 grams in the form of different gold jewellery items found in possession of the applicant is in commercial quantity .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version