2020 (1) TMI 1312 - CGOVT - Customs

Confiscation - one gold bracelet/kada and two gold chains - Baggage Rules - revision application has been filed on the grounds that the gold was purchased by the applicant from M/s. Kishan Lal Jewelers Pvt. Ltd. in India and he should be allowed to clear the gold jewellery without redemption fine, personal penalty and customs duty - HELD THAT - No evidence has been put forth by the applicant establishing his contention that impugned goods are of Indian origin except the invoices which cannot be treated as substantive evidence. The applicant was asked to give evidence regarding the mode of payment in respect of Purchase Invoices No. C-440, dated 13-5-2014 and No. C-668, dated 11-7-2014 and the fact that he was in India on these dates, i.e., the dates of purchase of impugned goods. Since the applicant has not furnished cogent evidence in support of his contention that the goods are of Indian origin the same cannot be accepted and is rejected. It is observed that the applicant did not request for permission to re-export the impugned goods before the lower authorities. Government holds that re-export of the confiscated goods cannot be considered at this stage - It is held that the adjudicating authority has correctly imposed redemption fine of ₹ 1 lac (Rupees One Lac) for release of goods along with applicable customs duty @ 36.05%. The said Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal are upheld. Revision application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of gold jewelry upon arrival at the airport.
2. Burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Request for re-export of confiscated goods.
4. Imposition of redemption fine, customs duty, and penalty.

Confiscation of gold jewelry:
The case involved the confiscation of one gold bracelet/kada and two gold chains from the applicant upon his arrival from Dubai. The items collectively weighed 264.000 grams and were valued at &8377; 6,27,982/-. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the confiscation order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, imposing a redemption fine of &8377; 1 lac, applicable customs duty, and a penalty of &8377; 1,00,000 under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant claimed the gold was purchased in India and sought clearance without fines or duties, arguing that he was a resident of Dubai and the gold was not concealed.

Burden of proof under Section 123:
The applicant failed to provide substantial evidence to prove the Indian origin of the confiscated goods, except for purchase invoices which were deemed insufficient. The burden of proof, as per Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, was on the applicant to demonstrate that the goods were not smuggled. Despite being asked for evidence regarding the mode of payment and his presence in India during the purchase dates, the applicant could not substantiate his claim. Consequently, his contention was rejected, and the burden of proof remained unfulfilled.

Request for re-export of confiscated goods:
The applicant did not seek permission for re-exporting the confiscated goods before the lower authorities. The Government determined that re-export at this stage was not a viable option, thereby denying the request for re-export of the confiscated items.

Imposition of redemption fine, customs duty, and penalty:
The adjudicating authority correctly imposed a redemption fine of &8377; 1 lac for the release of goods, in addition to applicable customs duty at 36.05%. The Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal were upheld, and the Government found no deficiencies in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. Consequently, the revision application filed by the applicant was rejected, affirming the original decision regarding the redemption fine, customs duty, and penalty.