9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Heading 7118.90, interpretation of EXIM Policy 1992-97 and Notification No. 117/94-Cus., distinction between "gold" and "gold coins" under Chapter 71 of the Customs Tariff Act. Analysis: The case involved the classification of "King Sovereign" gold coins imported by the respondents under Customs Tariff Heading 7118.90 and the applicability of EXIM Policy 1992-97 and Notification No. 117/94-Cus. The Customs authorities initially confiscated the goods for contravening the EXIM Policy, but the Collector (Appeals) reversed the decision, allowing the import under the Special Import Licence (SIL) and granting the benefit of the customs notification. The Department contended that the Collector (Appeals) erred in interpreting the word "gold" based on FERA 1973, disregarding the distinction between "gold" and "gold coins" under Chapter 71 of the Customs Tariff Act. They argued that exemptions under the Customs Act should align with the classifications in the Customs Tariff Act, emphasizing the difference between gold and gold coins. The Tribunal considered the arguments and held that the Collector (Appeals) correctly interpreted the provisions. The Tribunal noted that the Export Import Policy followed the FERA amendment allowing selective gold import under SIL. The use of "gold" in SIL and the exemption notification aimed at liberalizing gold importation, indicating that "gold" should be interpreted broadly to include gold coins. Therefore, the order of the Collector (Appeals) was upheld, rejecting the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal's decision emphasized that the common meaning of "gold" should encompass all gold items, including gold coins, to align with the purpose of SIL and the exemption notification. The judgment highlighted the context of the provisions and the objective of facilitating liberalized gold importation under the specified conditions, supporting the broader interpretation of "gold" to include gold coins.
|
