9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at be so, it should have been recorded in the passport or the appellant could have declared somewhere before the Customs while leaving or produce the same to substantiate their claim that these bangles were actually taken by her out of India while leaving and have been brought back in the genuine personal baggage. The records would show that when the bangles seized by the Customs Officers from the passenger, she claimed that the same were given by her daughter while she was in Chicago and carried out them while leaving from abroad. Therefore, this argument of the appellant holds no water. s per the records, got the bangles while she arrived at Hyderabad Airport and had not declared the same to the Officers under Section 77. It is the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s matter was called out, Shri E. Ram Reddy, the second appellant had appeared in person and prayed that the matter may be decided on merits based on the submissions made in their appeal memorandum. 2. Heard Ld. DR and perused the records. The facts of the case in brief are that on 29.10.2014, officers of Air Intelligence Unit of Customs at Hyderabad International Airport intercepted the appellant-pax Smt. Elete Susheela and Shri E. Ram Reddy carrying 5 gold bangles of 99.9 purity and weighing 311 grams valued at ₹ 8,50,000/- approximately. These bangles were not declared by the appellant before the Customs and these were recovered by the Officers of AIU when the appellants were exiting the exit gate. Further investigations were car ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ck to the first appellate authority for a decision. In pursuance of this order, the first appellate authority vide OIA No. HYD-CUS-000-APP-152 153-17-18, dated 26.03.2018 (impugned order) examined the matter at length and partly modified the order of the lower authority to the extent of reducing the penalty under section 114AA from ₹ 30,000/- to ₹ 5,000/- and upholding the rest of the order. The present appeal is against this Order-in-Appeal as follows: (i) The impugned Order-in-Appeal may be set aside and an amount of ₹ 80,000/- may be refunded to the passenger. (ii) Direct the department to initiate disciplinary action against the first appellate authority. (iii) Direct the Department to initiate disciplinary ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leaving or produce the same to substantiate their claim that these bangles were actually taken by her out of India while leaving and have been brought back in the genuine personal baggage. The records would show that when the bangles seized by the Customs Officers from the passenger, she claimed that the same were given by her daughter while she was in Chicago and carried out them while leaving from abroad. Therefore, this argument of the appellant holds no water. 5. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, the fact is that the appellant had, as per the records, got the bangles while she arrived at Hyderabad Airport and had not declared the same to the Officers under Section 77. It is the responsibility of the passenger to make de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
