9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Original confiscating gold due to violation of Customs Act; Interpretation of Notifications No. FERA/111/92, RBI Circular No. 15, Customs Notification No. 117/92, and Import Trade Control Order No. 83/90-93; Violation of Section 77 CA, 1962 regarding declaration of baggage contents; Distinction between non-resident Indians and Indian nationals/origin in gold import regulations; Consideration of RBI Circular in relation to FERA Notification; Imposition of penalty and confiscation of gold. Detailed Analysis: The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original confiscating gold by the Collector of Customs due to a technical ground that the appellant's visit was within six months of the previous one. The appellant, a Canadian Passport Holder, brought gold as baggage during his visit to India, which was confiscated and duty was imposed. The appellant argued that the duty had been paid on the gold, albeit by a co-passenger, and the Collector failed to consider the relevant Notifications granting permission for gold import. The appellant highlighted the distinction between Indian nationals and NRIs regarding the time gap condition for gold import. The arguments presented by both parties focused on the interpretation of Notifications such as FERA/111/92, RBI Circular No. 15, Customs Notification No. 117/92, and Import Trade Control Order No. 83/90-93. The appellant's counsel emphasized that the RBI Circular distinguished between NRIs and others regarding the time gap requirement for gold import. However, the JCDR contended that the FERA Notification must prevail over the RBI Circular and highlighted the violation of Customs Act due to non-declaration of the gold by the appellant. The Tribunal acknowledged the necessity to consider all relevant provisions, including the Customs Act, to understand the situation. It was noted that the appellant's failure to declare the gold himself constituted a violation of Section 77 CA, 1962. The Tribunal also analyzed the conditions of the Notifications, emphasizing that they did not differentiate between NRIs and Indian nationals/origin for gold import. The conflict between the FERA Notification and RBI Circular was discussed, with the Tribunal considering the impact of the circular on the case. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that while the gold was liable for confiscation due to violations of the Customs Act and Import Trade Control Act, absolute confiscation was deemed unjustified. The gold was allowed to be redeemed on payment of a fine, considering that the duty had been paid. The penalty imposed was reduced, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the absence of intent to evade customs duty.
|
