TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 547
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iscation under Section 111 of the Act, ibid as the passenger had brought gold jewellery in commercial quantity, the goods were non-bonafide and above specified limits in Baggage Rules. Sl. No. Description of goods Weight in Grams Value in Rs. 1. Ear Rings 9 pieces 23.21 59,117.00 2. Bangles 4 Nos. 48.00 122258.00 3. Stone studded necklace-1 23.12 58,888.00 4. 2 chains 96.13 244848.00 TOTAL 190.46 485111.00 2.1 On tendering the request for waiver of Show Cause Notice by the applicant the case was spot adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Airport) after due process of law vide Order-in-Original No. O.S.37 dated 09.07.2013 ordering the following:- (i) confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 4,85,111/- under Section Ill(d),(l),(m) & (o) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of Foreign Trade (D&R), Act 1992, with an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1000/- in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order. (ii) imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elongs to her husband. Some of the earrings belong to her mother in law. 4.8 That the acts of the original authority is high handed and biased. He even did not think, the true weight of gold should be arrived after reducing the weight of the stones and checking the purity of the gold. 4.9 That the order of detention, seizure and confiscation of the applicant's jewellery is against the provisions of law and established convention in our country. 4.10 That the gold jewellery seized belongs to four, but the case has been proceeded against the applicant only. 4.11 That the applicant and their family members were not given free allowance also. And prayed to release of the ornaments unconditionally to the applicant or alternatively order for re-examination of the ornaments, for its genuine make, markings, comparison with bills, assaying(Appraiser) by authorized persons and release the goods early. 5. A show cause notice was also issued to the Respondent Commissionerate on 14.03.2016, in response to which the following submissions have been made:- 5.1 That the applicant in her grounds of appeal stated that the goods brought by her were used one and the authorities wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Customs authorities. In this regard, in the present case, the duty free allowance is not applicable to the applicant as per Baggage Rules, 1998 which reads thus: Rule 6: " An Indian passenger who has been residing abroad for over 1 year is a//owed to bring jewellery free of duty in bonafide baggage up to an aggregate value of Rs. 50000/in the case ofa ma/e passenger or Rs. 1, 00, 000/- in the case of a female passenger. [or] Ru/e 3: Any passenger of Indian Origin holding a valid passport if coming to India after stay abroad for more than 3 days is allowed free of duty excluding jewellery. In the instant case, the applicant had not stayed abroad within stipulated time period, both the conditions [a & b] are not applicable to the applicant and hence free allowance cannot be given to the her and the person who carries the goods are subjected to Customs procedures and the goods cannot be distributed among their relatives who accompanied her at the time of arrival. The free allowance under this rule shall not be allowed to be pooled with the free allowance of any other passengers. And, hence the contention of the applicant is not legal. 5.4 Though the appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 118/2013 dated 30.08.2013 upheld the Order-in-Original. Now the applicant has filed this Revision Application on the grounds mentioned at para 4 above. 9. The applicant's contention is that she carried with her some old and used jewellery at the time of departing to Srilanka to be worn by her and her family members at the marriage function. That she admitted the mistake of not obtaining the export certificate from the Customs authorities in respect of impugned gold jewellery. Government observes that as rightly observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) the photocopies of the bills furnished by her do not tally with the quantity of the goods seized. The weight of the 4 bangles had been shown as 48 grams whereas the tax invoice dated 25.06.2013 of M/S Khazana Jewellery, Tirunelveli shows the weight of the 4 fancy bangles as 41.940 grams. Further while 2 gold chains were seized from the passenger, bill for only one has been produced whi....