TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Tribunal Upholds Commissioner Decision on Gold Jewellery Re-Export, Rejects Revenue Appeal</h1> The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow re-export of gold jewellery, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal ... Absolute Confiscation - Gold jewellery in question was not declared - whether the Gold Jewellery will be allowed to be re-exported - non-prohibited item - Held 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 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 Revenue. Issues:- Confiscation of gold jewellery by original adjudicating authority- Appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)- Re-export of gold jewellery under Section 125 of the Customs ActConfiscation of Gold Jewellery:The respondent was apprehended at New Delhi Railway station with gold jewellery, leading to its absolute confiscation by the original adjudicating authority. On appeal, the appellate authority noted that the gold jewellery was not a prohibited item and allowed re-export on payment of redemption fine and penalty. The appellate authority emphasized that the goods were not specifically prohibited from importation under the Customs Act or any other law, citing relevant legal provisions and case law to support the decision to set aside the order of absolute confiscation.Appeal Against Commissioner (Appeals) Order:The Revenue filed an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) seeking to challenge the decision allowing re-export of the gold jewellery. The Revenue contended that the jewellery was liable for confiscation due to non-declaration by the respondent, invoking Section 125 of the Customs Act. However, the Tribunal found that the gold jewellery was not a prohibited item and could be cleared on payment of duty, indicating that the only offense was the failure to declare it. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) as being in accordance with the law, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.Re-Export of Gold Jewellery under Section 125 of the Customs Act:The key issue revolved around the re-export of the gold jewellery under Section 125 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal considered the liberalized policy regarding jewellery importation and clearance on duty payment. The Tribunal clarified that the respondent's failure to declare the jewellery rendered it liable to confiscation under Section 125, allowing for redemption upon payment of a fine and penalty. By analyzing the circumstances and legal provisions, the Tribunal upheld the right of the respondent to re-export the gold jewellery, emphasizing that it was not a prohibited item and should be treated in accordance with the law.In conclusion, the Tribunal, led by Member (Judicial) Ms. Archana Wadhwa, upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow re-export of the gold jewellery, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The judgment highlighted the legal interpretation of prohibited goods under the Customs Act, the application of relevant provisions for confiscation and redemption, and the respondent's entitlement to re-export the non-prohibited gold jewellery.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
