TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 819
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ligence Unit of Income Tax at the airport. The AIU officers recovered 151 yellow metal coins appearing to be gold along with 2 bangles of yellow metal appearing to be gold. Thereafter, the officers of Income Tax Department handed over the appellant along with gold coins, gold bangles and luggage to the officers of the Customs (Preventive), New Customs House, New Delhi, who brought him along with his goods and luggage to Room No.34, New Customs House, New Delhi. A Panchnama was drawn. The appellant informed that all the coins were of gold and he had brought them from London. The said items (coins) were received by him from his father-in-law as a gift at the time of his marriage, which was solemnized in October, 2011. He had taken the said 151 gold coins with him in November, 2011 to London for the purpose of obtaining loan against gold. These are the same coins, which are of Indian origin, which prevailed during British India period, which he had brought back with him. He also produced the original receipt no.10278 dated 23.09.2015 issued by P.P. Jewellers in respect of the two gold bangles. As per the said invoice, the gold bangles were of 45.22 gms. of total sale value of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ain Administrator in TESCO till December, 2014. Thereafter, in December, 2014, he joined Telefonica O2 as Network Engineer, and since then, he is working in the said company. He further stated that he came to Delhi from London through Air India Flight AI- 112 on 23.09.2015 to celebrate Eid with his family at Srinagar and to take back his family to London. After completing the immigration formalities and collecting his baggage, he left the IGI Airport (Terminal 3) and went to Karol Bagh to collect the gold bangles from P.P. Jewellers. He collected the gold bangles after making the payment of balance amount Rs. 29,000/-. The order for the bangles was placed earlier on 9.9.2015, on which day he had made advance payment of Rs. 1 lakh. Thereafter, after some other shopping, he reached the IGI Domestic Airport Terminal-I at about 3 p.m. and got checked in his luggage. He was about to board the flight, the CISF personnel at security area, called him to identify his checked in baggage. When he was asked to open his baggage, they found 151 coins of gold as well as two gold bangles. On finding the gold coins and bangles, the CISF stopped him from boarding the flight and informed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The portion of the dower yet to be disbursed by the bridegroom X Value of additional gifts or jewellery or value of coins at that time Rs. 7,55,000/- INR Portion of additional gifts or jewellery or value of coins at that time pending with bridegroom. X 6. As per the affidavit of Ms. Hajra, wife of late Ali Mohd. Rather, mother-in-law of the appellant, indicated that, "30 Edward Gold Coins‟ had been gifted by her to her daughter, Ms. Fouzia Muzaffar on her marriage. 7. From the aforementioned facts on record, it appeared to Revenue that as per the statement of the appellant, he had never filed any declaration about the gold coins to the Customs Authorities at the time of taking outside India or on return to India (destination). Admittedly, 151 gold coins were recovered from the appellant. As per the marriage certificate submitted by the appellant, which was in urdu language read with its English translation, which inter alia, states that the marriage was solemanised between Mr. Muzaffar Ali Sheikh (appellant) and one Ms. Fozia Muzafar on 14.10.2011....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e period 1902 to 1910, pertaining to the King Edward VII, who reined during the period 1901 to 1910, and was the emperor of India also. The gold coins in question were in circulation in India during the British Indian period and are commonly/readily available in India. The word "IND" appearing on the coins means India and IMP stands for Emperor i.e. Emperor of India. The inscription on the coins under seizure, which reads as:- "EDWARDS VII D:G:BRITT:OMN: REX: F: D: IND: IMP" carries the meaning "Edward the VII, by the Grace of God, of all the Britons, King, Defender of faith, Emperor of India". 9. It was further stated that the gold coins were of Indian origin of the British period and were lying with the families as their treasure and changing hands from generations to generations. The coins under seizure were given by the father-in-law and other relatives to the appellant and to his wife, are the family treasures for future generations. As the appellant had no intention to dispose off the gold coins in question, so he brought these back from London to keep them as family treasure. There is no restriction to take any items from India to any foreign count....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hence, rigours of the Customs Act are not attracted. 12. It is further contended that the provisions of Section 111 (d) and (i) applies only when the goods are imported and attempted to be imported and are prohibited goods or dutiable goods, which is not the case. Such facts are not obtaining in the facts of the present case. Further, it is contended that as per Entry No. 321 and 322 of Notification No.12/2012-Customs dated 17.03.2012, the same are not applicable as the coins in question are of purity of 916 (determined by the appraising officer in his report), which is less than the prescribed limit of 99.5% purity. Since the coins are free items as per FT Policy, these cannot be termed as prohibited goods. The provisions of Section 2(33) defining prohibited goods‟ are not attracted as the gold coins are of Indian origin. 13. The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated vide Orderin-Original dated 30 March, 2017 holding that the appellant knowingly involved in illegal import and handling of gold coins and was in conscious possession and control of seized gold coins of foreign origin. He brought the seized gold coins from London into India ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ember, 2011 and he has brought back the same coins in September, 2015. Thus, the Court below have erred in relying on only half statement, and on that part of the statement which suits them, which is not permissible. The statement have to be read as the whole in evidence, and that part were in the appellant have stated that he had the coins available with him in India and he had taken to U.K. from India in November, 2011, cannot be ignored. If the whole statement is read together, there is admittedly no case of smuggling as the gold coins are of Indian origin which were legal tender during the British India period, had been taken to U.K. in 2011 and brought back in 2015. It is further urged that the presumption under Section 123 in favour of Revenue is not available in the facts of the present case. It is further urged that the appellant have led sufficient proof that he and his family are of good financial standing and were possessing gold coins and have also received gold coins at the time of his marriage in gifts. The whole case of Revenue is based on the allegation, that the gold coins being of foreign origin, which is a mistake of fact and a....