TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 32
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Customs Officers recorded his statement on 20.03.2015 and further the panchanama was drawn on 20.03.2015. The Gold Bars weighing 233.028 grams valued at Rs. 5,49,374/- (Tariff Value) and Rs. 6,13,526/-(Local markets price) was subsequently seized by the Custom Officers. A show cause notice dated 29.07.2015 was issued by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad whereby the appellant was called upon to show cause as to why the two gold bars weighing 233.280 grams having purity of 999% which were alleged to be duly concealed by the appellant in his sock should not be confiscated under Sections 111 (d), 111 (l) 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and as to why penalties should not be imposed on the appellant under Section 112 (a) and (b) and Section 114AA of the Act. The Said show cause notice was adjudicated vide Order-In-Original No. 19/ADCAK/SVPIA/O&A/2016 dated 27.04.2016 by the Additional Commissioner of Customs wherein it was held that two gold bars has acquired nature of "prohibited goods" because of the manner in which it was attempted to be cleared by the appellant. 2. Accordingly, it was ordered for absolute confiscation of two gold bars under Section 111(b), 111(l), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prohibited goods on account of the manner in which it was imported. 4. Thus, the Commissioner (Appeals) have not considered the fact that the show cause notice referred to Section 7 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. and has not given any finding in regard to the allegation under Section 7, therefore, the impugned order is required to be quashed. He submits that Section 7 of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 is not attracted as the appellant brought gold bars for his own personal use. He submits that as per para 2.07 of Hand Book procedure prescribe exemption categories for which import or export can be made without IEC. One of the exemption categories under para 2.07 is for a person who imports or exports goods for his personal use. In the present case, the appellant brought two gold bars for his personal use for making jewellery for himself and his family members and therefore, the action of the Revenue to hold goods in dispute as "Prohibited goods" is contrary to policy of Foreign Trade Policy. He submits that the appellant imported 233 grams of gold bars for his own use. The same cannot be decided that such a small quantity has be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t intended to pay duty before he was wrongly accused of smuggling by the Customs Officer. He further submits that since the goods i.e. gold bars correspond in respect of value or in any other particular with the entry made under the Customs Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under Section 77 of the Customs Act the goods cannot be confiscated. Without prejudice he submits that the request of the appellant to release the confiscated gold bars on payment of redemption fine as per the provision of Section 125 of Customs Act,1962 ought to have been allowed on the ground that restrictions have been imposed under section 10 (4) and 11 (1) of Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999 and instructions/circulars issued by the Reserved Bank of India from time to time but import of gold is not prohibited. He submits that the Learned Commissioner has erred in invoking provisions of section 10 (4), section 11 (1) FEMA Act, the instruction provided in such that is appealable. In relation to gold imported for commercial purpose but in the present case it has already been shown that gold imported of small quantity and for personal use i.e. in making jewellery for the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at-I- 2019 (369) ELT 1244 (Tri.-Ahmd) • D. Jewel Vs. Commissioner Of Customs, Surat-2019 (366) ELT 106 (Guj.) • Commissioner of Central Excise Customs and Service tax, Surat-II V/s. Dharmesh Pansuriya-2018 (363) ELT 555 (Tri.-Ahmd), • Commissioner of Customs (AP), Mumbai Vs. Alfred Menezes-2009 (244) ELT 334 (Bom). 8. On the other hand, the R B Bhasker Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- • 2003 (155) ELT 423 (S.C). Om Prakash Bhatia Vs. CC, Delhi • 2014 (309) ELT 671 (Ker.)-V.s K.P. Abdul Majeed Vs. CC, • 1997 (89) ELT 646 (S.C.) -Surjeet Singh Chabra Vs. Union O India • 2009 (247) ELT 21 (Mad)-CC (AIR), Chennai-I Vs. Samynathan Murugesan 9. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the record. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant concealed gold bars in his sock arriving from the Dubai At Airport. Though the appellant has made the submission that the appellant was about to declare the gold carried by him but as per....