TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 1134
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to Rs. 1,24,81,754 (Rupees One Crore Twenty Four Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Four) and that of Bar No. 2 from Rs. 1,18,81,774/-(Rupees One Crore Eighteen Lakh Eighty One Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Four) to Rs. 1,21,94,509 | Rupees One Crore Twenty One Lakh Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred Nine) under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. b. I confiscate the Gold Dore Bar No. 1 having re-determined value Rs. 1,24,81,754 (Rs. One Crore Twenty Four Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Four)under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with section 11(1) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulatory) Act, 1992 and rules made there under. c. In lieu of confiscation of Gold Dore Bar No. 1, the importers are, however, given the option under Sec. 125 laid to redeem the goods for re-export on payment of fine of Rs. 20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Lakh) within one month from the date hereof. d. I also confiscate the Gold Dore Bar No. 2 of re-determined value Rs. 1,21,94,509 (Rupees One Crore Twenty One Lakh Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred Nine) and the Tin Package under section 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me of examination the purity in the respect of one bar was found to be 92.64% and other 96.54%. They requested for re-testing of gold bars at any BIS approved laboratory in Mumbai. The goods were conducted and test certificate no. BTH/CM/2014/09 dated 09.04.2014 issued by the NTH showed purity of 95.4486% for Bar No. 1 and 94.076% purity for Bar No. 2. Appellant had produced the letter from the supplier. They stated that there was no intention to declare wrong purity and it was a genuine human error. Requested for re-export of Bar 1 which was having purity above 95% and Bar 2 to be released for home consumption. They did not contest the test within time and the order with the adjudicating authority has observed that import of gold bar no. 1 is contrary to the prohibition imposed and held liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) on payment of redemption filed have allowed for the export. Second bar which was imported in the same tin box has been held liable for confiscation under Section 118(a) and redemption fine imposed. He has also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 10 Lakhs on the appellant. It is a case of a genuine error for which the supplier is responsible ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore Bar No. 1 which has been imported without a valid license is liable for confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with section 11(1) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulatory) Act, 1992 and rules made there under. Further the Gold Dore Bar No. 2 has been imported in the same Tin Package in which Gold Dore Bar no. 1 is packed. Section 118(a) of the Customs Act reads as follows: "Where any goods imported in a package are liable to confiscation, the package and any other goods imported in that package shall also be liable to confiscation." Therefore, the Gold Dore Bar No. 2 and the Tin Package in which the Gold Dore Bars have been packed are liable for confiscation under section 118(a) of the Act ibid. The importers have unequivocally accepted their mistake. They have requested to release bar no. 2 for home consumption and have requested to allow them the re-export bar no. 1 which is not covered under the import license. They have attributed the stated mistake to the crude method of manual measurement of purity undertaken by the overseas supplier inspite of clear instructions to adhere to the limit of 95% purity. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... other goods imported in that package shall also be liable to confiscation." It is a fact that Bar No. 2 covered under the DGFT license No. 0350002703/3/14/00 dated 11.021____. been co-packed with Bar No. 1 in one single tin box. Each Bar is found to be distinctly separate inside the Box. Even by accepting the importers submission on this count imposition of section 118(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be ruled out in this case. The only point comes out that the packing of both the bars in one tin box was unintentional and purely incidental. The confiscation of Bar No. 2 and the tin box under section 118 (a) of the Act ibidis purely technical for Gold Dore Bar No. 1 has exceeded 95% purity limit set out in DGFT license by a whisker and has been found to be liable for confiscation. The mismatching of purity of gold dore bars imported are of apparently inadvertent nature because of the fact that the dore bars are crudely manufactured and the purity is heterogeneous through the bar. The importers profit margin is not unduly enhanced by importing a bar which is exceeding the stated purity by small margin; on the contrary jeopardizing the entire import for violation of condit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....akhs needs to be reduced consequently. We do so and reduced the same to Rs. 50,000/-. 4.7 In respect of bar 2 we find there is no contravention vis-a-vis claiming the benefit of exemption notification. None of the test reports have shown a purity level of more than 95% there can be a case for undervaluation on which total undervaluation can be Rs. 3,12,735/- by the adjudicating authority involving total duty of Rs. 25000/-. Redemption filed imposed in terms of Section 118 cannot be justified in the present case. In case of bar 2 we set aside the same. For undervaluation of the Gold Bar 2 in our view a penalty of Rs.10 Lakh cannot be justified and is produced to 10,000/- under Section 112 A of the Customs act. 4.8 Accordingly we summarize: Redemption fine of Bar 1 reduced from Rs. 20Lakhs to Rs. 50,000/-. Redemption fine of Bar 2 set aside. Penalty under section 112(a) reduced from Rs. 10 Lakhs to Rs 10,000/- 5.1 In the modifications as indicated in para above the impugned order is upheld along with the appeal as indicated above. ( Order pronounced in the open court ) ============= Document 1 D D GROL GULDREST RESOURCES COMPANY LTD. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mumbai-400 051 2. Party's Ref. No. : Letter No-S/3-MISC-01(26)/2014-15/PCCCC, dated 07/05/2014 3. Description of the test item : 4. Identification of the : test item 5. Date of receipt of test Item 6. Identification of Test Method 7. Sampling Procedure : GOLD DORE BAR No. MENT300414-01 Gold Dore Bar. No. MENT300414-01 imported by M/s Bhandari Gold and Jewellas Pvt. Ltd vide Bill of Entery No 08/05.05.2014 Sample received on 07/05/2014 in a tin box, covered by green envelope signed by P.O of Customs & Sealed by adhesive tape with lead seal. Standard method by AAS N.A. where relevant Bleon 09/0574 Bos Document 3 सतà¥à¤¯à¤®à¥‡à¤µ जयते National Test House (W. R.) Mumbai 20209 60185 As desired, the sample of Gold Dore Bar No. MENT 300414-01 has been drill the presence of custom officer, firms representatives and scientists of chemical lab and t charge of workshop for the required amount of drillings. Gold Dore Bar was handed over firms representative immediately in presence of the aforesaid persons. The sample has tested by stan....