TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r safety purposes and has not concealed them ingeniously with an intention to escape detection by the customs authorities and the same may not have been declared to the department may be due to ignorance of law - the Appellant did not intend to smuggle the goods. Applicability of baggage rules - rate of duty - Held that: - the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in case of VIGNESWARAN SETHURAMAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA [2014 (12) TMI 268 - KERALA HIGH COURT] held that the ornaments worn on the person cannot be considered as baggage - the goods in question cannot be classified and taxed as Baggage - the impugned goods shall be liable for duty at the tariff rate i.e 15% adv. as was in force at the material time. Redemption fine - penalty - Held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singapore and the same was converted into gold strip for wearing around waist and to avoid detection by the custom authorities. It was alleged that the Appellants attempted to smuggle the same and thus the impugned goods are liable for confiscation. The adjudicating authority vide OIO dt. 04.06.2004 held that the Appellants are not entitled for exemption under Notification No.12/2012 Cus dt. 17.03.2012. He however held that the Gold being not prohibited goods and can be imported subject to certain conditions and restrictions including the necessity to declare the goods on arrival at the Customs Station. The adjudicating authority gave following findings : The passenger was not eligible to import gold under Notification No.12/2012 Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he individual Appellant. 3. The Appellant field appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals) against the aforesaid order wherein they prayed for benefit of Notification No. 12/2012 Cus dt. 17.03.2012 and alternatively also requested that the gold strip i.e Vaddanam was worn in person and not from any baggage hence the duty cannot be demanded at the baggage rate @ 35%. The Appellate authority however dismissed the appeal holding that the submission of Appellant is without any merit. Hence the present appeal. 4. The Ld. Counsel appearing for all the Appellants would submit that as may be seen from the OIO of the adjudicating authority the goods were not intended to be smuggled or brought in the country by concealing the same. Further the orna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is prohibited, may be detained at the request of the passenger for the purpose of being returned to him on his leaving India. The term baggage thus connotes something which is distinct and different from the passenger who has brought the baggage. Section 81 of the Act empowers the Central Board to frame regulations regarding the declaration of the contents of any baggage, its custody, examination, assessment to duty and clearance of baggage and transit of baggage from one customs station to another or to a place outside India. Going by the stipulations in Sections 77, 80 and 81 of the Act, I am persuaded to take the view that the provisions therein can have no application to the instant case where the petitioner, a tourist coming fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty is illegal. He rely upon Tribunal's order in case of RIM ZIM TEXTILE Vs. CCU, NEW DELHI - 2016 (343) E.L.T. 1167 (Tri. - Del.) wherein it was held that since there is no evidence of collusion between supplier and appellant and therefore redemption fine and penalty was set aside. 7. The Ld. AR appearing for the revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authority. 8. Heard both the side and perused their submissions. We find that the Appellants were wearing the gold strips i.e Vaddanam on their waist and the same was not carried by them in their baggage. However the same was not disclosed to the officers and after enquiry by the officers the same was revealed to the officers. The adjudicating authority in his finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sition of penalty and redemption fine cannot be made upon them. We find that the adjudicating authority has held that the intention to evade duty was absent in the present case. We thus hold that the Appellant be charged with reduced amount of redemption fine and penalty. We accordingly hold that each of the Appellant shall be liable for redemption fine of ₹ 1 lakh in terms of section 125 (2) and penalty of ₹ 25,000/- in terms of Section 112 (a). The penalty imposed upon them under Section 114AA is set aside in view of our above findings. 10. All the appeals are disposed off in above terms with consequential reliefs to the Appellants, if any. (Order pronounced in open court on 21/11/2017) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
