9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Articles of Gold . Further, the appellants have imported the Gold Medallion which is classified as Articles of Gold from Korea and vide Notification No. 152/2009 dated 31.12.2009 the BCD leviable on the import of Articles of Gold from Korea falling under Chapter 71141910 is Nil. Further, CBEC Circular No. 27/2016-Cus. dated 10.06.2016 relied upon by both the authorities is not applicable in the facts and the circumstances of this case because the appellant is not a Nominated Agency but it is only an individual importer who has imported gold against advance payment or Letter of Credit (not exceeding 90 days) for Home consumption, wholesale and retail sales. Further, the Master Direction issued by the RBI is also not applicable in the present case because that instruction of the RBI only applies to Nominated Banks and Nominated Agencies as notified by DGFT. Further, I also note that in the present case, the importer has not imported gold on consignment basis and therefore, the conditions laid down by the RBI is not applicable to the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/20004/2019-SM - Final Order No. 20370/2019 - Dated:- 30-4-2019 - SHR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred in the SCN have rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the importer is also liable for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Bases on these allegations, SCN was issued as to why 100 Gold Medallion of Purity 999.9 falling under CTH 71141910 of CETA, 1975 attempted to be imported vide Bill of Entry No. 2296535 dated 03.07.2017 should not be held liable for confiscation under Section 111 (d) of Customs Act and why penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 should not be imposed on the appellant. After following the due process, the Original Authority confiscated the 100 pieces of Gold Medallion under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and thereafter gave the importer an option to redeem the goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 on payment of ₹ 15 Lakh only for the purpose of re-export. The Original Authority also imposed a penalty of ₹ 15 Lakh under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who vide the impugned order rejected the appeal. Hence, this appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Coins under CSH 71141910 of CETA 1985. The Learned Counsel further submitted that both the authorities have wrongly applied CBEC Circular No. 27/2016-Cus dated 10.06.2016 because the said Circular is applicable only to Nominated Agencies importing gold under the scheme for Export against Supply by Nominated Agencies and not to individuals importing gold against advance payment or Letters of Credit (not exceeding 90 days) for the Home consumption, wholesale and retail sales. Therefore, according to the Learned Counsel placing reliance on this Circular by the Department to sustain the allegation against the importer is misplaced. He further submitted that the careful reading of the RBI/FED 2016-17/2012 Master Direction No. 17/2016-17 dated 01.01.2016as updated up to 12.01.2017 would show that the Circular relates to the procedure to be followed by the Authorized Dealer for allowing remittance of Foreign Exchange against import of Goods Services into India read with Notification No. GSR 381 (E) dated 03.05.2000 issued under Foreign Exchange Management Rules, 2000. He also invited my attention to the Index attached to this Circular and in particular C.11 which relates to Import o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Hyderabad Airport from Republic of Korea and the same was cleared free of duty vide same Notification No. 152/2009-Cus. dated 31.12.2009 as amended from time to time. 5. On the other hand, the Learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the only allegations of the Department is that the appellant has imported the Gold Medallion of Purity 999.9 falling under CTH 71141910 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the same is not permitted because the appellant is not a Nominated Bank or a Nominated Agency or a Holder of a Status of a Star/Premier Trading House. As per the RBI regulations, it is only the Nominated Bank and Nominated Agency as notified by DGFT which is permitted to import the said goods. Further, I find that it is not in dispute that the Gold Medallion of Purity 999.9 fall under CTH 71141910 of CETA 1975 and as per the Import Policy, the Articles of Gold are classifiable under CTH 71141910 and are freely importable and there is no restriction and in view of the decisions cited supra, Gold Medallion fall within the definition of Articles o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
