TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1725X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such goods - But in the instant case, the respondent had gone to New York only for a short visit and there is no clue that he was either a U.S. citizen or working there on long term basis. On the contrary the respondent is an Indian citizen and resided permanently in Delhi. Therefore, no statutory backing for re-exporting the gold to New York is forthcoming from the O-I-A. Otherwise also the re-export of the goods does not sound to be rational in this case as the respondent had brought the gold items with intention to evade customs duty and on being caught he requested for re-export of goods again to avoid payment of customs duty only. The Government agrees with the Revenue’s contention that the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als), vide above mentioned OIA, has modified the OIO by allowing Mr. Ranmeet Bhatia to re-export the gold on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 2.05 lakhs and penalty of ₹ 50,000/-. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has filed the present revision application against the OIA. The respondent had also filed a Revision Application No. 375/08/B/15-RA, dated 23-3-2015 against the above OIA and it has already been disposed of vide Order No. 24/2017-Cus., dated 1-11-2017 whereby the redemption fine and penalty are reduced from ₹ 2,05,000/- and ₹ 50,000/- to ₹ 1,85,000/- and ₹ 25,000/- respectively. 3. Present revision application has been filed mainly on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an erro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d only at the request of the passenger while he or she is returning from India to the foreign country and thereby it is explicit that returning of the PAX to the foreign country after a short visit to India as a tourist or otherwise is a crucial condition for re-export of such goods. But in the instant case, the respondent had gone to New York only for a short visit and there is no clue that he was either a U.S. citizen or working there on long term basis. On the contrary the respondent is an Indian citizen and resided permanently in Delhi. Therefore, no statutory backing for re-exporting the gold to New York is forthcoming from the O-I-A. Otherwise also the re-export of the goods does not sound to be rational in this case as the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
