9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contended that the goods seized by the Customs authorities did not only belong to her but also belonged to her relatives and free allowances were not given to them by the Customs authorities. In this regard, Government notes that in the present case the duty free allowance is not applicable to the applicant as per Baggage Rules, 1998. In the instant case, the applicant had not stayed abroad within the stipulated time period and hence free allowance for import of jewellery cannot be allowed to the applicant. - Revision application dismissed - Decided against the applicant. - F. No. 373/101/B/13-RA - ORDER NO. 41/2016-CUS - Dated:- 11-5-2016 - Joint Secretary Rimjhim Prasad ORDER This Revision Application is filed by Smt. N. Auxcelia, (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) against the Order-in-Appeal No. 118/2013 dated 30.08.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Madurai, with respect to Order-in-Original No. O.S.37/2013 dated 09.07.2013 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Madurai. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Smt. N. Auxcelia, wife of Shri Joseph Edin, holder of Indian Passport No. K 3473120 travelled from Srilank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on facts and law. 4.2 That both the authorities have failed to appreciate and consider the facts that most of the articles are used ones except 4 bangles, one pair of ear ring and pendent(stone studded), which were purchased on 25.06.2013, from Khazana Jewellery, Tirunelveli. The bill is in the appellant name and these articles bear the seal KZ . The bills clearly show the fact that these new jewellery are in exchange of old jewellery. 4.3 That both the authorities failed to appreciate and consider the fact, that the applicant hails from a reputed family, and it is customary and convention that these jewellery are worn by the ladies during these functions in different styles to impress their social standing. 4.4 That the observation of the Commissioner(Appeals) that the applicant could not produce corroborative evidence to prove her case is false and against the records produced. Moreover, he had not specified any reason and analysis as to how he could not corroborate. The remarks are general and biased. 4.5 That the wedding invitation, purchase bills, and the marks bear on the ornaments are substantial in nature and genuine evidence to prove the case of the applicant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not an excuse. 5.2 That the applicant tried earnestly to produce all the purchase bills available with her to prove her contention that the jewellery seized by the Customs at Madurai Airport are old jewellery being used by her. Though the photocopies of the bills furnished by her before the appellate authority bear the applicant's name, it does not tally with the quantity of the goods seized. Because in the detention receipt in O.S. no. 37/2013 dated 09.07.2013, the weight of the 4 bangles had been shown as 48 grams whereas the tax invoice dated 25.06.2013 of M/S Khazana Jewellery, shows the weight of 4 fancy bangles as 41.940 grams. Besides, two chains weighing 96.13 grams were detained by the Customs and for this the applicant had not produced any bill. As the quantity does not tally with the seized goods, the bill produced by her is an afterthought and cannot be taken into consideration that the bills are corroborative evidence. Had the applicant gone to Srilanka to attend a marriage function carrying so much of gold jewellery, she should have informed the Customs authorities before leaving India. All the passenger leaving India are subject to clearance by Customs Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se on 04.04.2016 and was attended by Shri Abdul Nazeer, Advocate on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the grounds of revision application. During personal hearing the applicant also stated that they had gone to Srilanka with family to attend wedding for purpose of which she had carried jewellery of hers and that of her mother-in-law; that as its her own jewellery which is brought back, no duty is chargeable; also as it is her 1st visit no penalty be imposed , that there is no concealment or mis-declaration or non-declaration of the jewellery; that the bangles belonged to her, the chain was of her husband's (more than 10 years old), the necklace of her daughter and studs are of her mother-in-law. 7. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal and written submissions made in response to the hearing. 8. On perusal of records, Government observes that the applicant travelled from Srilanka to India and arrived at Madurai Airport on 09.07.2013. On examining of her hand baggage, Customs Officers found gold jewellery consisting of 4 bangles, one stone studded necklace, 2 nos. of chains and 9 nos. of ear ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... norance of law does not hold good as it is a well settled position of law that ignorance cannot be an excuse to escape for not conforming to law. 11. Government observes that in terms of Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962, the owner of any baggage will make a declaration of its contents to the Customs officer. In this -case gold weighing 190.46 grams in the form of different gold jewellery items found in possession of the applicant is in commercial quantity and does not constitute a part of bonafide baggage in terms of Section 79 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 3 and 6 of the Baggage Rules, 1998. As per Rule 3 passengers returning from countries other than Nepal, Bhutan, Myanamar or China are allowed to bring free of duty used personal effects excluding jewellery as specified in Appendix A to the Rules. In terms of Rule 6 a passenger returning to India after a stay of over one year and above shall be allowed clearance free of duty of jewellery in his bonafide baggage to the extent mentioned in Appendix D to the Rules. Jewellery is therefore not a permissible item of duty free Import as personal-baggage under Section -9 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Baggage Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
