TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 239
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the appellant filed Bill of Entry No. 3682159 dated 20/10/2017 under Notification No. 46/2011, Sl. No. 966 (i) for import of 150 pieces of Gold Bars of purity 99.10% totally weighing 150 Kg falling under Customs Tariff Heading 7108 12 00 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The gold was detained and a query was raised to the appellant to clarify the end use of eligibility of import of gold in terms of DGFT Notification No. 34/2017 dated 18/10/2017. After the query was answered by the appellant, the goods were detained and a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for confiscation of the imported gold and for imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant contested the show-cause notice but the adjudicating....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was restricted by two notifications (a) Notification No. 34/2017 dated 18/10/2017 issued by DGFT which stipulated end use condition of manufacture and export for Gold Bar imported as Nominated Agencies which primarily meant that Gold Bars imported under consignment basis were required to be manufactured and exported which also mean that Gold Bars which are not imported as Nominated Agency or on consignment basis were importable without any end use condition. Further, on 18/12/2019, another notification was issued by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India which completely restricted the import of Gold Bars by Normal importers and only Nominated Agencies were permitted to import the Gold Bar which means that before 18/12/2019, Gold Ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant. Further, by Notification issued on 18/12/2019, it is clear that prior to the date of the Notification dated 18.12.2019, the gold could have been imported freely. He also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sri Exports Vs. CC, Bangalore Customs vide Final Order No. 20370/2019 dated 30/04/2019 to say that gold was freely importable during the impugned period. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR opposed the contention of the learned counsel and submits that although the Airway bill was issued on 17/10/2017 but the goods left the exporting country after 18/10/2017. Therefore, it cannot be said that goods have been imported prior to the date of the Notification. He further submitted that appellant being a Nomina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e for import by air is the date on which Airway bill has been issued i.e. 17/10/2017. In view of this, we hold that the date of import of the impugned gold is 17/10/2017. (b) Whether the provisions of Notification No. 34/2017 dated 18/10/2017 are applicable to the facts of the case or not? As it is already been held that the date of import of the impugned gold is 17/10/2017, further, we find that the provisions of Notification No. 34/2017 dated 18/10/2017 are applicable, if the Nominated agency imports the gold, the same is required to be manufactured and exported thereof. But in the case in hand, the appellant has imported goods as a Normal importer and filed Bill of Entry as a Normal importer in terms of RBI Guidelines, therefore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of Purity 999.9 fall under CTH 71141910 of CETA 1975 and as per the Import Policy, the "Articles of Gold‟ are classifiable under CTH 71141910 and are freely importable and there is no restriction and in view of the decisions cited supra, Gold Medallion fall within the definition of "Articles of Gold‟. Further, I find that the appellants have imported the Gold Medallion which is classified as "Articles of Gold‟ from Korea and vide Notification No. 152/2009 dated 31.12.2009 the BCD leviable on the import of "Articles of Gold‟ from Korea falling under Chapter 71141910 is Nil. Further, I find that CBEC Circular No. 27/2016-Cus. dated 10.06.2016 relied upon by both the authorities is not applicable in the facts and the ....