TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court affirms Commissioner's decision on customs case involving gold bars confiscation, allows redemption upon payment.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow Versus Mohd. Nayab & Imtiyaz Idris</h3> Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow Versus Mohd. Nayab & Imtiyaz Idris - 2017 (357) E.L.T. 213 (Tri. - All.) Issues involved:1. Whether absolute confiscation was warranted for the two gold bars recovered from the respondents.2. Whether the respondents were eligible for bringing gold into India.3. Whether the penalty imposed on the respondents was appropriate.Analysis:1. The issue in this appeal revolved around the confiscation of two gold bars weighing approximately 111 gms each, which were not declared to Customs. The respondents claimed the gold bars were given to them by another individual to be delivered at the airport. The Customs seized the gold bars and issued a show cause notice for confiscation under relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondents contested the notice, arguing that they were ready to pay the duty and that gold was not prohibited for import. The Order-in-Original found the gold was illegally imported due to lack of proper declaration and held it liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act.2. The respondents appealed, claiming the gold was for personal use and should not be confiscated. They argued that they were intercepted before they could declare the gold and pay the duty, thus not violating any laws. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation but allowed redemption on deposit of duty and fine. The Revenue also appealed, contending that the gold was concealed and should be absolutely confiscated as prohibited goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed both appeals, stating that absolute confiscation was not warranted as the individuals from whom the gold was seized were identifiable, and the option of redemption was correctly given.3. The Revenue further argued that the respondents were attempting to smuggle the gold and should face absolute confiscation. However, the respondents maintained that they did not commit a serious offense as they were intercepted before reaching the Customs post for declaration. The Tribunal found that the quantity of gold imported was not commercial, and the respondents could have legally imported up to 1 Kg each with proper declaration. The penalty imposed was deemed appropriate, and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding confiscation with redemption fine and penalty.
TaxTMI 