2024 (2) TMI 626 - HC - Customs

Provisional release of 26 gold dore bars weighing 5 kg - import of 27 gold dore bars from Republic of Rwanda, which is one of the Lesser Developed Countries covered by the N/N. 96/2008- Customs - HELD THAT - It is noticed that 25 out of 26 gold dore bars have tested with a purity of less than 95% and 1 gold dore bar has tested with a purity of 95.05%, which is within the permissible margin of error of /- 0.25%. Learned counsel for Appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in holding that even if the goods are found to be restricted or prohibited at the time of import, they would still be subject to provisional release - It is held that observation of the Tribunal that even if the goods are found to be restricted or prohibited at the time of import would still be subject to provisional release, would not amount to expression of opinion and is held to be restricted to the facts of this case. The issue is purely factual and no substantial question of law arises for consideration - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the provisional release of gold dore bars by the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, compliance with conditions for release, discrepancies in weight and purity of the gold dore bars, margin of error in testing, rejection of provisional release request by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, and the Tribunal's decision on the release of the gold dore bars.

Comprehensive Details of the Judgment:

1. The appellant challenged the Tribunal's order permitting the provisional release of 26 gold dore bars, subject to specific conditions including duty payment and security requirements.

2. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) issued notifications regarding the Preferential Tariff Scheme for gold imports from Lesser Developed Countries, which was relevant to the case.

3. The respondent filed a Bill of Entry for the import of 27 gold dore bars from a specified country under the Preferential Tariff Scheme.

4. Specific conditions regarding weight and purity had to be met for the gold dore bars to qualify for import under the scheme.

5. Following a search by the DRI, the gold dore bars were confiscated due to alleged discrepancies in weight and purity.

6. The respondent disputed the allegations, stating that most bars met the weight and purity requirements, except for one bar that was clearly labeled with its weight.

7. Testing of the gold dore bars at the Central Revenue Control Laboratory revealed a margin of error in the purity testing process.

8. The respondent argued that certain bars with purity slightly above 95% fell within the margin of error and should not be penalized.

9. Despite applying for provisional release, the request was initially rejected by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, leading to the appeal to the Tribunal.

10. The Tribunal, considering test reports and the margin of error, directed the provisional release of 26 gold dore bars.

11. Upon appeal to the High Court, a re-testing of the bars was ordered, revealing discrepancies in purity levels.

12. Most bars tested below the required purity level, with one bar falling within the permissible margin of error.

13. The appellant argued against the Tribunal's decision to release goods found to be restricted or prohibited upon import.

14. The Court clarified that the Tribunal's decision was specific to the case's facts and did not establish a general principle.

15. Considering the factual nature of the case, no substantial legal question was identified, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

16. The Court ordered compliance with the Tribunal's release order within one week.

*This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, highlighting the key issues and the Court's findings in a structured manner.*