2018 (3) TMI 1725

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oner of Customs (Day Warehouse), IGI Airport, Terminal-3, New Delhi against the Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)Cus/Air/ 154/2015, dated 9-3-2015, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, whereby the applicant has been allowed to re-export the confiscated gold on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2,05,000/-, Customs duties and on payment of penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. 2. The brief....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion application against the OIA. The respondent had also filed a Revision Application No. 375/08/B/15-RA, dated 23-3-2015 against the above OIA and it has already been disposed of vide Order No. 24/2017-Cus., dated 1-11-2017 whereby the redemption fine and penalty are reduced from Rs. 2,05,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,85,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- respectively. 3. Present revision applicati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....overnment does not have any doubt that the gold items were brought by the respondent with malicious intention to evade Customs duties and, therefore, these gold items are undisputedly liable for confiscation as held by the Additional Commissioner of Customs in his Order. Confiscation of the gold is upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) also and the Government agrees with his Order to the extent tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was either a U.S. citizen or working there on long term basis. On the contrary the respondent is an Indian citizen and resided permanently in Delhi. Therefore, no statutory backing for re-exporting the gold to New York is forthcoming from the O-I-A. Otherwise also the re-export of the goods does not sound to be rational in this case as the respondent had brought the gold items with intention to ev....