2016 (11) TMI 674

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellants were proceeding towards the exit, they were intercepted and examined by DRI, Mumbai. On the personal search under panchnama, they were found to be carrying 85 FM gold bars each. They were also carrying US$ 6215/- each. In addition, Bhupendra Chudasama was found carrying UAE Dirham 320/-, one half Riyal of Oman and one note of 100 Baiza of Oman. The said gold and foreign currency were seized under a panchnama. The show cause notice issued to the appellant was adjudicated by the Commissioner to order confiscation of 170 gold bars weighing 19.822 gms under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with Foreign Trade Act, 1992. The appellants were allowed an option to redeem the same on payment of Rs. 25 lakhs each in lieu of confiscati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion pursuant to the direction of the Board had been filed before the Tribunal. In respect of other noticees, it was held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is infructuous as the Commissioner in the impugned order had neither discussed their role nor confirmed or dropped the charges made against those persons. 3. Aggrieved by this order, Revenue approached the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. The Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 24.2.2009 set aside both the orders of the Tribunal and remanded the matter for de novo consideration independently in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CCE, Mumbai-II vs. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.  2009 (233) ELT 446 (Bom.). 4. The issue was posted for hearing on 3.10....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the question of making a declaration of the same does not arise. It was argued that the amount of foreign currency of US$ 6215/- was just enough to cover the payment of duty on the imported gold. It was also argued that the seized gold was not concealed in any manner and the duty sought to be evaded was only to the extent of Rs. 2,18,042/-. In these circumstances, it was argued that the redemption fine and penalty are excessive. 6. Revenue is in appeal against the said order on the grounds that the Commissioner in the impugned order has stated that though the gold is restricted item under the present Exim Policy, the authorities were allowing redemption of concealed/non-declared gold in view of the liberalized policy of the Government. &....