9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er is that some of the goods (watch, chowki and lahanga) were carried by the passenger at the time of departure and were brought back to India and there is no justification for charging duty on goods exported from India. It is therefore, pleaded that while these items may not be charged to duty, the television may be allowed under duty free allowance and on rest of the goods duty be charged. In the instant case, the passenger produced local purchase invoices which were not in his name thus he failed to prove the identity of the impugned goods as per Section 20 of the Act, ibid and it also proved that the goods carried by the passenger did not constitute his bonafide baggage under the provisions of Section 79 of the Customs Act, 1962, as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. 2.1 The passenger's authorized representative Shri Ram Prakash Garg (holder of Passport No.Z-2562612) approached the Customs on 10.05.2013 and through his letter dated 10.05.2013 requested for release of the impugned goods on applicable rate of duty, fine and penalty, if any and also requested for waiver of Show Cause Notice and personal hearing. He further stated that the lahanga, Cartier brand watch and silver crafted wooden chowki had been taken from India only for use in the marriage ceremony and also submitted the local purchase invoices for the said goods in support of his contention. 2.2 The authorized representative submitted local invoice no. 522821 dated 02.05.2013 from M/S Johnson Watch Co., C-16, Connaught place, New ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are re-imported into India after exportation there from, such goods shall be liable to duty subject to all the conditions and restrictions, if any, to which the goods of the like kind and value are liable or on importation thereof. 2.4 Personal hearing in the matter was given on 14.05.2013 and it was attended by Shri Ram Prakash Garg, authorized representative of Shri Manoj Kumar Jain. He submitted B/E No. 9257465 dated 08.02.2013 under which the Cartier brand watch was imported. He also requested for the re-valuation of Langha on the basis of invoice value produced by him instead of appraising the value at taking ₹ 2.5 lakhs on the higher side. He further submitted that it was only a procedural lapse on part of the passenger, who ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t clearance of the goods. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, the applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)/Cus/663/2013 dated 16.12.2013 modified the Order-in-Original to the extent of extending 40% rebate on the market value to arrive at the effective assessable value of impugned goods. Rest of the Order-in-Original was upheld by Appellate Authority except above modification. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application under Section 129 DD of Customs Act, 1962 before Central Government on the following grounds: 4.1 It is on record that the petitioner has produced the VAT paid invoice no. 00060 dated 25.04.2013 issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wice one at the time of import by the M/S Johnson Watch Co., C- 16, Connaught Place, New Delhi and second time from the petitioner. 4.3 It is not the case of the Department that the petitioner has taken rebate/ drawback at the time of export of goods. Therefore Customs duty is not chargeable on such goods reliance is placed on the following case law: (i) 2006 (196) ELT 441 (it) 2001 (1360 ELT 1159 4.4 In view of the above it is respectfully prayed that the goods mentioned at SL No. 2,3& 7 may be allowed without customs duty items no. 1 may be allowed without duty under duty free allowance of ₹ 35,000/- and on the rest duty may be charged. 5. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 03.09.2015, 18.09.2015 & 13.10.2015 .Nob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the impugned Order-In-Appeal partially allowed the appeal by allowing 40% abetment in the value. Now, the applicant has filed the Revision Application on grounds in para 4 above. 8. Government observes that there is no dispute about the fact that goods were undeclared as are not bonafide baggage and that the passenger opted for the green channel.The main contention of the passenger is that some of the goods (watch, chowki and lahanga) were carried by the passenger at the time of departure and were brought back to India and there is no justification for charging duty on goods exported from India. It is therefore, pleaded that while these items may not be charged to duty, the television may be allowed under duty free allowance and on rest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
