TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1741
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....toms Department and disposed of during the pendency of the respective proceedings. 3. Vide Order-in-Appeal dated 14th May, 2025, the subject gold jewellery were directed to be released to the Petitioner, subject to payment of redemption fine of Rs. 3,80,000/- along with applicable customs duty and penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/-. The said Order-in-Appeal was passed pursuant to the directions of this Court vide order dated 17th April, 2025 passed in an earlier writ petition filed by the Petitioner being W.P.(C) 4851/2025. The said Order-in-Appeal was also modified by this Court vide order dated 21st May, 2025 passed in the said writ petition waiving the applicable customs duty. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner is a Cana....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 and Mr. Makhinder Chopra v. Commissioner of Customs New Delhi (2025: DHC: 1162-DB) vide order dated 17th April, 2025 in W.P.(C) 4851/2025 had directed as under: "10. Since the Petitioner is a foreign citizen and the gold bangles are personal effects, the same would be fully exempted under the Baggage Rules, 2016 as well, in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani, (2017) 16 SSC 93. 11. The appeal ought to have been taken in time for hearing. Five years is a substantial period of gap. 12. Hearing notice has now been received by the Petitioner after filing of the present petition. 13. Since the hearing is fixed for 21st April, 2025, furth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds as under: "9.0 In light of discussions and findings as above, I allow the appeal partially against OIO No. 107/ADJ/2021 dated 19.04.2021 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs, T-3, IGI Airport, New Delhi and impugned goods i.e. "Fourteen (14) gold Bangles having purity 995 total weighing 1110 grams valued at Rs. 38,44,119/-" is allowed to be released to the appellant/authorized person on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 3,80,000/-(Rupees Three Lakh Eighty Thousand only) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 along with applicable Customs duty. The penalty on the appellant is reduced to Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) to be imposed under Section 112(a) & 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order was passed for release on 21st May, 2025. 9. Accordingly, the Petitioner has preferred the present petition praying for payment of the entire value of the subject gold jewellery. 10. On 20th June, 2025, Mr. Shubham Tyagi, ld. SSC, appearing for the Customs Department, had submitted that the Customs Department is willing to pay the entire amount of the subject gold jewellery to the Petitioner, subject to deposit of a cancelled cheque and the detention receipt. 11. On a query from the Court, it was submitted by Mr. Tyagi, ld. SSC that the amount that would be paid to the Petitioner, would be the amount which was recovered from the sale of the subject gold jewellery in the year 2021 and not the present market rate of gold. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vit." 14. Today, the Court has been informed that a refund order has been passed in the present matter on 8th July, 2025 and the same has been handed across by the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. As per the said order, the refund has been calculated as under: "12. Therefore, the refund calculation is an admitted by the department is reflected in the table below: A Total admitted Value of Gold Rs. 38,44,119/- B Redemption fine as per OIA CC (A) CUS/DI/Airport/425/2025-26 dated 14.05.2025 to be set off 3,80,000/- C Penalty fine as per OIA CC (A) CUS/DI/Airport/425/2025-26 Dated 14.05.2025 to be set off. 3,50,000/- D Customs duty @ 38.5 (Basic Custom Duty @ 35% & SWS @ 10%) Rs. 14,79,986/- E ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in its order dated 21st May, 2025 in W.P.(C) 4851/2025. However, even at that stage, the Customs Department had not disclosed that the subject gold jewellery had already been disposed of. 17. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the disposal of the subject gold jewellery itself is shrouded under doubt. Moreover, the refund order is conspicuously silent about when the subject gold jewellery was disposed of and how much money was recovered by the Customs Department as also the procedure followed for disposal of the same. 18. Considering the above as also the fact that the quantity of the subject gold jewellery was substantial i.e., 1110 grams, let the Assistant Commissioner (Refunds), file an affidavit on record ....