TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 823X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought and cleared on payment of duty. The only offence on the part of the respondent is that the jewellery in question was not declared by them thus making it liable to confiscation subject to the provision of Section 125 of the Customs Act, which allow confiscation of the goods and consequent redemption subject to payment of redemption fine and penalty - appeal dismissed - decided against R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted item and as such allowed the re-export of the same on payment of redemption fine and penalty. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraph from the impugned order is reproduced: 5. At the outset, I find that the facts are admitted. Regarding the issue of gold jewellery, it is observed that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority had confiscated the same absolutely; hence no option for Redemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that there is nothing on record to say that such goods are specifically prohibited from importation under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 or under any law in force. Hence, I am of the view that the contention raised by the appellant has force regarding the element of prohibited goods with reference to Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, Foreign Trade Policy Environment Prot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llate authority has gone by the fact that the gold jewellery in question is not prohibited goods as defined in Section 2(33) of the Customs Act. If that be so, the respondent has to be given the option to re-export the same. 6. I find that it is not the Revenue s case that the gold jewellery in question is prohibited item. In terms of the liberalized policy, jewellery can be brought and cleared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
