TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 865
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e business premises, the DRI discovered 15,245.800 grams of gold jewellery valued at Rs. 4,38,01,183/-, reportedly imported under the aforementioned exemption notifications. Following due legal process, the learned Adjudicating Authority denied the exemption benefits and demanded the payment of differential duty amounting to Rs. 19,03,19,798/- on goods cleared under the said bills of entry. Penalties were imposed pursuant to Sections 114AA and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 95,00,000/- was levied on Director Shri P. Seetharaman under Section 114AA of the Customs Act. The present appeal has arisen as a result of these proceedings. 3. The Ld. Counsel Shri B. Satish Sundar appeared for the appellant and Shri Anoop Singh, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared for the respondent. 3.1 Shri B. Satish Sundar the Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted the following time chart of dates and events. DATES EVENTS April 2011 to October 2012 Appellant entity imported gold jewellery from Thailand in 48 consignments availing benefit of notification no.85/2044-Cus dated 31.08.2004 r/w notification no. 101/2004-Cus(NT) dated 31.08.2004 12.10.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Personal hearing held before the respondent (Page 95). Written submissions also filed on the same day on behalf of the appellant and others. 15.05.2014 The appellant furnishes bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.1,44,32,586/- and secures release of the seized goods and bond for Rs.4,38,01,183/- 18.11.2015 Further proceedings in adjudication are conducted by the respondent on change of adjudicating authority. On the same day written submissions are filed. 28.11.2015 Order-in-Original passed by the respondent confirming the allegations and proposals in the Show Cause Notice. February, 2016 Writ petition in W.P No.3418 of 2016 filed before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras assailing the aforesaid Order-in-Original 15.04.2021 The Hon'ble High Court, Madras disposes of the writ petitions giving leave to prefer a statutory appeal within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order and if so, the statutory appellate authority is directed to entertain the appeals without reference to period of limitation and on merits. 02.07.2021 The certified copy of the aforesaid order is obtained 07.07.2021 Appeal instituted before this Hon'ble T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e time of the import is invalid. 6. 2015 (317) ELT 482 (Tri-Chen) -Commissioner of Customs Vs Sterilite Industries 7. 2016 (331) ELT 424 (AP) - Mahadev Metaliks Pvt Ltd Vs UOI 8. Final Order No.41308-41310 of 2024 dated 21.10.2024 in the case of Hyundai Motors Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Para 8) F. It is submitted that the order in original specifically refers and relies on two materials namely international price of gold at para 3.55 and 3.56 to aver that price of gold mentioned in concerned invoices were almost the same of the price prevailing in the global market and LVAC done were by way of making charges which average 4-5% and not 22% as shown in COO. The order also refers to similar case of imports decided by the Commissioner of Customs CSIA Mumbai made in Order No.08/2014-15 dated 31.12.2014 at para 3.10.2. These materials surfaced for the first time in the impugned order and has not been put to the noticee/appellant in the Show Cause Notice and therefore the findings or at least a part thereof are outside the scope of Show Cause Notice and hence violative of natural justice. G. Major part of the demand is hit by limitation as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e exemption notification would be on the assessee. Moreso because the importation of gold into India is highly regulated and hence the proof must be strictly discharged. This is reflected in the fact that Section 123 of the CA, 1962 reverses the standard burden of proof in the case of gold, requiring the person possessing the gold to prove its licit import, failing which the goods are to be treated as prohibited goods under Section 2(33) of the CA, 1962. Secondly when the department adduces sufficient evidence, either direct or circumstantial, in respect of its contention, the onus of proof shift to the importer and adverse inference could be drawn against the importer if he failed to put before the Department material which was in his exclusive possession. B. The letter dated 30.01.2013 from the Royal Thai Consulate General at Chennai, produced by the appellant, certifying the authenticity of the COO certificate appears irregular and not with proper authority as it is highly unusual for a Consulate to entertain and certify such a document, for which they are not the authorised channel and even more so to advice the Indian Customs on how the verification of the Certificate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 123 applies are seized on a reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods, the burden of proving that they are not smuggled goods shall be on owner. I. The department is left with no option but to issue the SCN and decide the matter within time limits if the details sought for from the overseas administration is not forth coming. The Ld. A. R. Hence prayed that the impugned order may be upheld. 4. We have heard the rival parties are perused the related documents. 5. The issue pertains to the import of gold jewellery from Thailand as per the procedure under notification 101/2004-Cus(N.T.), dated 31.08.2004, which provides for the 'Interim Rules of Origin', in determining the origin of products eligible for the preferential tariff concessions for the Early Harvest Scheme. This is pursuant to the Framework Agreement between the Republic of India and the Kingdom of Thailand. As per Notification No.85/2004-Customs dated 31.08.2004, availed by the appellant, duty concessions was extended to certain specified goods when imported into the country from Thailand subject to the condition that such goods are of the origin of Thailand in accordance with provisions of Interi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eme Court's judgment in Dilip Kumar and Co. (supra). Further as pointed out by revenue the fact that Section 123 of the CA, 1962 reverses the standard burden of proof, on the person, in the case of gold, makes this burden even more strict. Further the department has also submitted that when sufficient evidence is adduced the onus of proof shifts to the importer and adverse inference could be drawn against them if they fail to substantiate their case. 9. We also note that it is the appellants case that the demand and its confirmation made under the SCN and OIO is premature as admittedly the COO issued by the statutory authority had been questioned and a reference made to the designated authority of Kingdom of Thailand through Director General, DRI. They have stated that if such documents have been received they have not been shared with the appellant, further certain material like Order No. 8/2014-15 dated 31.12.2014 and document showing the international price of gold etc, were not disclosed to them but have been cited in the OIO which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. While the department submits that it is left with no option but to issue the SCN and decide ....