TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (11) TMI 625
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roceeds on those occasions were rented through unauthorised channels. 2.1 The lower authority ordered confiscation of the impugned goods with option to redeem the redemption fine of Rs. 7,50,000/- and penalty of Rs. 3,75,000/- was also imposed on the appellant. 3. Being aggrieved with the orders of the adjudicating authority, the applicants filed appeals before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai who rejected the same. Now, aggrieved with the above orders of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai, the applicants have filed Revision Applications before the Revisionary Authority under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 on the following grounds :- 3.1 That the impugned order is contrary to facts on record, devoid of any merit and has been passed without proper application of mind, hence is liable to be quashed and set aside on this ground alone. 3.2 That the ld. Appellate Commissioner erred in holding that the applicant signed the statements in English after understanding them, on the ground that he filed the affidavit in English. The original authority as well as the appellate authority, have not taken pains to go through the affid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the first time that he was taking diamonds out of India in personal carriage and was not aware of the procedures. He also informed that even till 28-10-2004 he was not able to find out any Customs Declaration Form or format of RBI permission, prescribed for taking out any goods in personal carriage. 3.4 That in view of the above, the allegations of smuggling diamonds, on the date of his interception as well as for the previous occasions, and allegations of channelling sale proceeds through unofficial channels are without any substance and are ipsi dixit of the investigating officer, which are mechanically endorsed without any cogent reason, by the original authority as well as the appellate authority. 3.5 That the submissions of the applicant regarding the value of the seized goods were also rejected without any verification and application of mind on the said aspect. The applicant has informed that 211.41 carats of cut and polished diamonds valued at USD 24,955.41 (i.e. less than USD 25,000 were for exports to M/s. My Fair Lady Jewellery, Kuwait. He had also informed that 632.01 carats of "RD Cut Wht. Diamonds S1 and Diamond Mala" of total value Rs. 4,79,171.25 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the entire currency of Rs. 8,500/- and merely relied on the retracted statement which itself was involuntary and obtained under duress in language not known to the applicant. The exemption available to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- has also not been taken into account. For the balance of Rs. 3,500/- the explanation regarding the purpose of paying Customs duty has also not been considered. Without prejudice to the above contention, even if the said amount of Rs. 3,500/- would have been confiscated, option to redeem the same ought to have been given, especially when diamonds were also confiscated vide the order but were released on redemption fine. 3.8 That the ld. Appellate Commissioner failed to appreciate that as per the Notification No. FEMA 116/2004-RB, dated 25-3-2004 issued by the Reserve Bank of India, vide which Regulation 4(d) and 4(e) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2000, were amended, the export of goods valued not more than USD twenty-five thousand (US $ 25,000) were exempted from filing GR/PP declaration. Similarly export of gifts valued upto rupees five lakhs (Rs. 5,00,000/-) were also exempted from filing GR/PP....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ormalities. So, there is no reason to accept the subsequent explanation that impugned exports are covered under Notification No. FEMA 116/2004/RB, dated 25-3-04 r/w above mentioned EXIM Policy provisions which exempts exports goods of value not exceeding US $ 25,000 and gifts of value not exceeding Rs. 5,00,000/- from filing GR/PP declarations. The said Notification and policy provisions are not applicable to him as the value of goods in this case exceeding US$ 25,000. In fact he has made two categories of goods to seek shelter under the said notification. Total value of the goods is Rs. 18,42,875/- (US$ 40907) and therefore the said notification and other policy provision "cited by applicant are not applicable in the case of applicant. 8. Further, applicant has stated that department has assessed the value on higher side. Since the valuation was done by Government approved Jewellery valuer and the appraiser (Jewellery expert) it cannot be said that valuation was on higher side. The said value was accepted by the applicant at the time of drawing punchnama and he cannot dispute the same now. Therefore, value assessed is reasonable and legally correct. 9. In view of t....