9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e revisionary authority only, the scope of revision application has to be restricted to the correctness of the order in the light of factual and legal background of the case considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) and not beyond it. Since the request of re-export was not made before Commissioner (Appeals) and he did not have any occasion to consider this aspect, this request made before the Government for the first time cannot be entertained in the revisionary proceeding. Even otherwise also the request for re-export can be permitted under Section 80 of the Customs Act, 1962 only when the passenger intended to return from India to the foreign country along with detained goods after a short visit to India as a tourist or otherwise. But ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is requested to set aside the above mentioned Order-in-Appeal and allow the applicant to re-export the confiscated gold. 3. A personal hearing was held in this case on 3-4-2018 and Sh. I.C. Joshi, Advocate, and Sh. R.N. Singh, consultant, appeared on behalf of the applicant and reiterated the above discussed grounds of appeal. Sh. Sanjay Kumar, ACO, had earlier appeared for hearing on 12-3-2018 on behalf of the respondent and pleaded that Order-in-Appeal is just and proper. 4. The Government has examined the matter and it is found that the applicant s main case is that his action/omission are not covered under clauses (d), (l) and (m) of Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 and consequently the gold imported by him is not liable for con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attracted in this case inasmuch as gold was imported by the applicant contrary to the provision imposed under Section 7 of the Foreign Trade Development Regulation, 1992. Applicant has vehemently pleaded that the Section 111 is not applicable as the gold is not a prohibited goods. But this argument is not found relevant in the context of this case as Section 111(d) does not talk about prohibited goods and instead it speaks of importation of any goods contrary to any prohibition imposed under Customs Act, 1962 or any other law for the time being in force. Apparently, applicant has misunderstood prohibition imposed under Customs Act, 1962 or any other law with prohibited goods. But these terms are totally different and prohibition under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the first time cannot be entertained in the revisionary proceeding. Even otherwise also the request for re-export can be permitted under Section 80 of the Customs Act, 1962 only when the passenger intended to return from India to the foreign country along with detained goods after a short visit to India as a tourist or otherwise. But in the instant case the applicant is an Indian citizen residing in Delhi and had gone to Dubai for a short visit of two months only. Thus he did not return from India to Dubai after a short visit as envisaged in Section 80 of the Customs Act and thereby there is no rational for re-exporting the gold to Dubai where he or his family is not presently staying. 5. In view of the discussions above, Government does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
