TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 618
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tariff Item, CTI 7114 19 10 and classifying them under CTI 7118 90 00 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the Tariff Act. The Principal Commissioner also rejected the exemption claimed by the appellant under notification dated 31.12.2009, as amended by notification dated 31.12.2016 and ordered for recovery of differential duty with interest. The Principal Commissioner also held that the goods provisionally cleared were liable to confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Customs Act but since the goods were not available and had already been cleared against Bond and Bank Guarantee, redemption fine with penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act was also imposed. 2. Customs Appeal No's. 50465, 50466, 50467, 50472, 50473, 50476, 50638 and 50735 of 2021 have also been filed by M/s Kay Ess Enterprises, RVJ Overseas P Ltd., Credence Commodities Exports, S.K Impex, Ram Aabhoshan, Uma Strips Ltd., SMH Shipping Private Limited and N P Trading Co, respectively, to assail similar orders passed by the Principal Commissioner. 3. The details of the Bills of Entry and the demand made in the aforesaid nine appeals are as follows: Customs Appeal No. 50220 of 2021 SN....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6,82,02,263.00 72,35,578.00 8. 2818639 dated 11.08.2017 13,68,12,366.00 1,45,14,424.00 Total Demand Details (A) Grand Total 82,67,51,842.00 8,77,10,103.00 (B) Redemption Fine 6,60,00,000.00 (C) Penalty Imposed 85,00,000.00 Customs Appeal No. 50472 of 2021 SN. BoE No. and Date Value (Rs.) Total Differential Duty (Rs.) Provisionally Assessed 1. 2549417 dated 21.07.2017 2,65,12,832.00 28,12,746.00 2. 2639566 dated 28.07.2017 8,08,94,046.00 85,82,049.00 3. 2651823 dated 29.07.2017 6,73,70,317.00 71,47,317.00 4. 2701241 dated 02.08.2017 5,53,27,626.00 58,69,708.00 5. 2701242 dated 02.08.2017 5,37,51,102.00 57,02,454.00 Finally Assessed 6. 2714754 dated 03.08.2017 6,87,73,887.00 72,96,222.00 7. 2787417 dated 09.08.2017 20,44,20,360.00 2,16,86,956.00 Total Demand Details (A) Grand Total 25,81,71,462.00 2,73,89,410.00 (B) Redemption Fine 3,00,00,000.00 (C) Penalty Imposed 55,00,000.00 Customs Appeal No. 50473 of 2021 SN. BoE No. and Date Value (Rs.) To....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ption Fine 1,40,00,000.00 (C) Penalty Imposed 14,00,000.00 4. The appellants claim to have imported articles of gold which are round in shape and have images of gods, saints, temples or historical sites. These articles are struck in the form of a coin and according to the appellant are not or were not intended to be legal tender and infact were more akin to medals or medallions and were loosely or colloquially described as gold coins. 5. The appellants claimed classification of these imported goods as "articles of gold‟ under CTI 7114 19 10 and these goods were cleared after availing exemption from payment of customs duty on the basis of the notification dated 31.12.2009 that extends the benefit of NIL Basic Customs Duty, BCD to all goods falling under Customs Tariff Headings, CTH 71021 to 711890 on production of Country of Origin Certificate. The aforesaid customs notification was issued in terms of the India-South Korea Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. 6. However, show cause notices were issued to the appellants seeking to re-classify the imported goods and deny the exemption claimed by the appellant 7. The appellants....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the learned authorized representative appearing for the Department also does not dispute that the factual dispute in the present appeals are similar to that in the appeals decided by the Tribunal on 28.03.2022. 11. The relevant portions of the decision rendered by the Tribunal in Abans Jewels are reproduced below:- " 28. The appellant had described the goods in the Bills of Entry as "gold coin" (round) (other than legal tender). Thus, coins imported by the appellant are not legal tender and nothing has been brought on record by the Department to substantiate that the goods imported by the appellant are legal tender. The description of the goods imported by the appellant would, therefore, not fall under CTI 7118 90 00. 29. The next issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the appellant is justified in classifying the goods under CTH 7114. CTH 7114 would cover articles of gold and the goods imported by the appellant are also articles of gold which are round in shape. Heading 71.14 of HSN provides that these goods are larger than articles of jewellery of heading 71.13 and they include articles for domestic or similar use like medals and medal....