2018 (4) TMI 1658

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....application is filed mainly on the grounds that the applicant had brought the gold for self use only from Dubai, gold was not concealed, it was declared at the red channel, his actions/omissions are not covered under Sections 111(d), (l) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, therefore, the gold has been wrongly confiscated and applicant has not contravened any legal provisions so as to attract any penalty. Accordingly, it is requested to set aside the above mentioned Order-in-Appeal and allow the applicant to re-export the confiscated gold. 3. A personal hearing was held in this case on 3-4-2018 and Sh. I.C. Joshi, Advocate, and Sh. R.N. Singh, consultant, appeared on behalf of the applicant and reiterated the above discussed grounds of a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct as mentioned in Para 2.20 of Foreign Trade Policy, 2012-15. Further, the gold in any form other than ornament is mentioned in Annexure-1 to the Baggage Rules and the same is not allowed as part of baggage. Thus, import of the gold by the applicant was not allowed under the Baggage Rules and could be imported after taking import Export code from DGFT only. Consequently, Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 is clearly attracted in this case inasmuch as gold was imported by the applicant contrary to the provision imposed under Section 7 of the Foreign Trade Development Regulation, 1992. Applicant has vehemently pleaded that the Section 111 is not applicable as the gold is not a prohibited goods. But this argument is not found relevant in....