9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (9) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gold biscuit having the inscription of a bird on one side and credit suisse 5 tolas fine gold 999.9 on the other side. The appellant at the relevant time was a non-resident Indian. On her arrival, she declared all the baggage items including the gold chain with 5 tolas gold biscuit. The Assistant Collector of Customs permitted the facility under TBRE in respect of gold bangles but did not allow TBRE facility in respect of gold chain which had the locket with a gold biscuit. He held the gold chain is a crude jewellery and, therefore, it is prohibited item for import. On that ground he ordered absolute confiscation of the gold chain, with the locket totally valued at Rs. 14,520/-. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the order. In his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant vehementally contended that the finding of the authorities below that the gold chain is not a jewellery is erroneous. He also contended that even if the gold chain and the biscuit are prohibited for import, since a true declaration had been made, the Asstt. Collector as well as the Appellate Collector ought to have allowed re-export. In this connection Shri Raichandani placed reliance on the provisions of Section 80 as well as the decision of this Tribunal reported in 1985 (21) E.L.T. 341 Mohd. Bin Ahmed v. Collector of Customs. Shri Raichandani incidentally referred to the decision of the very Collector (Appeals) in another case where the Collector had allowed re-export in respect of two gold chains with pendant 140 grams value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tolas of 999.9 purity. The order of the Assistant Collector further discloses gold bangles were allowed on TBRE. The TBRE form requires mentioning of gold jewellery. This has to be done according to the rules by the Customs Officers. Apparently the gold chain with the locket had not been entered because the Customs Officer found the gold chain to be in crude form and the gold biscuit was a bullion prohibited for import. The question for consideration is whether the authorities below were justified in not allowing re-export for the reasons stated in their orders. Section 77 of the Customs Act requires the owner of a baggage to make a declaration of the contents of the baggage for the purpose of clearing it. Section 80 provides that the bagg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. 6. A question similar to the question involved in this appeal came up for consideration in Mohd. Bin Ahmed s case referred to above. After detailed consideration of the provisions of the Customs Act this Bench had held that Section 80 permits temporary detention of baggage at the request of the passenger which are dutiable or prohibited for import provided a true declaration had been made under Section 77. The Bench had also considered the contention regarding the bonafide baggage and had observed the bonafide baggage comes into picture only for the purpose of claiming free allowance in terms of the baggage rules and not for the purpose of interpreting Section 80. From the order of the Appellate Collector in another case referred to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
