TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the gold articles namely one gold kara, one gold chain and one gold cut piece, total weighing 454 gms are apparently not of commercial quantity for a person earning such high salary. It has not been alleged even in the above two orders. The purchase of these articles by the applicant from his own income source is also not dispute in the above two orders. Above all it is not established in this case that the applicant had concealed these three articles in his baggage or in his body parts - the Government finds that the element of concealment of gold is not established and the only fault on the part of the applicant has been that he did not declare the importation of the above three articles to the Customs Officers before his departure fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has allowed the applicant to redeem the confiscated gold articles on payment of fine of ₹ 480000/- and a penalty of ₹ 250000/- on the applicant. 2. The revision application has been filed mainly on the ground that he had requested the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow re-export of the confiscated gold articles on payment of reasonable fine and penalty. But the Commissioner (Appeals) has completely ignored their above request and has instead allowed redemption of confiscated goods on payment of Customs duty, heavy redemption fine of ₹ 4,80,000/- and harsh fine of ₹ 2,50,000/-. In the revision application the applicant has once again requested to modify the Commissioner (Appeals) s Order and allow him to re-export th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the applicant at all and has just allowed the applicant to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of Customs duty, redemption fine and penalty as mentioned above. Therefore, the applicant has requested for re-export of the goods once again on several grounds such as the applicant is working in Dubai for long time as Sales Manager on the basis of a work visa issued by Dubai Government, he earned monthly salary of 15,000 Dhirams, (equivalent to ₹ 2.5 lakhs approximately); that he had purchased only one gold kara, one gold chain and one gold cut piece for himself and for his wife; that these three items are manifestly not for commercial use and he had not concealed these three items from the Customs Officers as is alleged in the Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of the applicant has been that he did not declare the importation of the above three articles to the Customs Officers before his departure from the arrival hall. Therefore, the above three articles of the value of ₹ 12,47,535/- are certainly liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act and the applicant has also not disputed this aspect. The applicant has requested for re-export of the goods for the above stated reasons and mainly on the ground that the applicant is not in a position to redeem the goods in India on payment of Customs duty etc., as he is working in Dubai and is almost settled there. To support his request, the applicant has relied upon the above mentioned decision of Supreme Court in the case of P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of re-export of confiscated goods in any manner. Considering all the above discussed facts, the decisions and especially the fact that the applicant is working in Dubai as a Sales Manager and the Commissioner (Appeals) has not rejected the applicant s request for re-export of the goods in his Order, the Government allows the re-export of goods on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 3,00,000/-, Further, it also agrees that penalty of ₹ 2,50,000/- imposed on the applicant is also on the higher side and considering the above facts, the same is reduced to ₹ 1,00,000/-. The fine and penalty of the above amount will not only eliminate any profit of margin, if any, but will also have a positive effect on the applicant to ensure stric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
