TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as in the seizure report, it has been observed that the purity is 22 crt. - the impugned orders are not sustainable in law in view of the judgment of Kerala High Court in the said case - the impugned order set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/21257/2018-SM, C/21256/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20020-20021/2019 - Dated:- 8-1-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri S. Palanikumar Advocate For the Appellant Shri Gopakumar, Jt. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG Appellants have been filed these two appeals against the impugned order dt. 24/11/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby the Commissioner has ordered absolute confiscation of the gold under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered absolute confiscation of the impugned goods under Section 111(d), (l), (m) and (o) of the Customs Act read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (D R) Act, 1992 and also imposed penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 to the tune of ₹ 10,000/- and ₹ 6000/- respectively. The Orders-in-Original were passed by the Commissioner of Customs. Aggrieved by the said order, appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner(Appeals) who rejected the appeals on the ground that the appeals do not lie before him as per the provisions of Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and without going into merit he rejected the appeals. thereafter appellants filed revisions before the Revisionary Authority who directed the parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on identical facts, the Kerala High Court in the case of Vigneswaran Sethuraman Vs. UOI [2014(308) ELT 394 (Ker.)] has set aside the confiscation and imposition of penalty. He further submitted that against the decision of the Kerala High Court, the Revenue filed a review petition before the High Court and the Division Bench of the Hon ble High Court dismissed the petition which is reported in 2015(325) ELT 573 (Ker.). he also submitted that on identical facts, the Revisionary Authority has remanded the matter to the original authority and the original authority has set aside the absolute confiscation but imposed redemption fine and penalty. He has produced copies of the decisions on record. He also produced the copy of the order passed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bags or containers in which a traveller carries his/her goods or belongings. Section 2(22) of the Act defines the term goods to include baggage. Having regard to the stipulations in Section 77 and the definition of the term baggage occurring in Section 2(3) of the Act, the body of a passenger cannot be said to be baggage. In the instant case, the gold chain was worn by the petitioner and was not carried in his baggage. It was therefore not necessary for the petitioner to declare the gold chain worn by him. Section 80 of the Act clarifies the position. Section 80 stipulates that the baggage of a passenger, which contains any article which is dutiable or the import of which is prohibited, may be detained at the request of the passenger for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owever refer to the law which imposes the prohibition. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents was also not able to bring to my notice any provision in the Act or the Baggage Rules, 1998 to that effect. No provision in any other law to that effect was also brought to my notice, in the absence of any prohibition imposed by the Act or any other law to the effect that a foreign tourist arriving in India cannot wear gold ornaments on his person or wear gold ornaments of 24 carat purity, clause (d) of Section 111 could not have been invoked to confiscate the gold chain worn by the petitioner. The gold chain was not concealed in any package and therefore it could not have been confiscated invoking clause (i) of Section 111. Even if it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|