9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 82 - AT - CustomsImport of restricted item - Gold Granules of Purity 99.99% (Non-Monetary) - It is the case of the Revenue that import of Gold Granules is permitted only through a Nominated Bank or a Nominated Agency, or a Holder of Status of Star and Premier Trading Houses, subject to RBI Regulation and procedure prescribed in this regard - HELD THAT - As per the RBI regulations, it is only the Nominated Bank and Nominated Agency as notified by DGFT which is permitted to import the said goods - Since the appellant is not a Nominated Bank or a Nominated Agency or a Holder of Status of Star and Premier Trading Houses, the restriction procedures and clarifications issued by the RBI relating to import of Gold/Gold Granules do not entitle the payment to import the Gold Granules in question. Further, it is not in dispute that the Gold Medallion of Purity 999.9 fall under CTH 71141910 of CETA 1975 and as per the Import Policy, the Articles of Gold are classifiable under CTH 71141910 and are freely importable and there is no restriction, Gold Medallion fall within the definition of Articles of Gold . Further, the appellants have imported the Gold Medallion which is classified as Articles of Gold from Korea and vide Notification No. 152/2009 dated 31.12.2009 the BCD leviable on the import of Articles of Gold from Korea falling under Chapter 71141910 is Nil. Further, CBEC Circular No. 27/2016-Cus. dated 10.06.2016 relied upon by both the authorities is not applicable in the facts and the circumstances of this case because the appellant is not a Nominated Agency but it is only an individual importer who has imported gold against advance payment or Letter of Credit (not exceeding 90 days) for Home consumption, wholesale and retail sales. Further, the Master Direction issued by the RBI is also not applicable in the present case because that instruction of the RBI only applies to Nominated Banks and Nominated Agencies as notified by DGFT. Further, I also note that in the present case, the importer has not imported gold on consignment basis and therefore, the conditions laid down by the RBI is not applicable to the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Allegations of improper import of Gold Medallions under Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Applicability of Notification No. 152/2009 and related exemptions - Interpretation of RBI Circular and CBEC Circular in relation to import regulations - Comparison with past judgments and relevant legal precedents Analysis: 1. Improper Import Allegations: The case involved allegations of improper import of Gold Medallions under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellant imported 100 Gold Medallions from Korea, claiming benefits under Notification No. 152/2009. The authorities alleged that the appellant, not being a Nominated Bank or Agency, was not eligible to import the Gold Medallions. However, the appellant argued that as per the Import Policy, 'Articles of Gold' are freely importable without restrictions, citing relevant legal precedents supporting the classification of Gold Medallions as 'Articles of Gold'. 2. Applicability of Notification No. 152/2009: The appellant relied on Notification No. 152/2009 to claim exemption from duty on the imported Gold Medallions. The notification specified that the Basic Customs Duty (BCD) on import of 'Articles of Gold' from Korea was Nil. The appellant argued that the Gold Medallions fell under this category, making them exempt from duty, which was supported by the clearance of similar goods at other airports at Nil rate of duty under the same notification. 3. Interpretation of Circulars: The appellant challenged the application of CBEC Circular No. 27/2016-Cus and RBI Circulars by the authorities. The appellant contended that these circulars were not applicable to individual importers like him, who imported against advance payment or Letters of Credit, and not on consignment basis. The appellant highlighted that the RBI Circulars were meant for Nominated Banks and Agencies, not general importers, and thus, should not be used to justify the allegations against him. 4. Comparison with Legal Precedents: The appellant presented past judgments, including Tejpal Oswal v. Collector of C.Ex., Sita Ram Alias Chhota Bombaiya v. CCE, Vishnu Narain v. Collector, and ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, to support his argument that Gold Medallions should be classified as 'Articles of Gold' and are freely importable. The appellant also referred to a previous judgment by the Hyderabad CESTAT in his own case involving Gold Granules of similar purity, where the Tribunal allowed the appeal on identical grounds. In conclusion, the Tribunal, in its judgment, set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal found that the appellant's import of Gold Medallions was permissible under the relevant regulations and notifications, dismissing the allegations of improper import. The Tribunal directed the Customs Authorities to clear the goods free of duty, emphasizing the appellant's compliance with the applicable laws and regulations.
|
