9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 824X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led as it was not declared by the appellant while bringing into India. There is sufficient reason in the appeal showing that the appellant was returning to India after a period of 16 years and was ignorant of legal provisions. From the facts recorded in the Order-in-Original, it appears that during investigation, the appellant has fully disclosed the nature of the gold and has produced whatever documents were available with her showing its purchase in USA. There is nothing on record to show that she was trying to mislead the investigating authorities. Section 125 allows redemption in lieu of confiscation in all cases on payment of fine. If the goods are prohibited, the redemption may be allowed but if the goods are not prohibited, suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom Hyderabad to Mumbai, the gold biscuits were detected. It is not in dispute that she had brought gold biscuits with various foreign markings into India and that she had not declared them with the Customs nor has paid any duty thereon. 2. Section 123 of the Customs Act applies to gold, watches and other goods notified by the Central Government. If any such goods are seized under the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods, the burden of proving that they are not smuggled rests on the person from whom they are seized. The appellant could not discharge the burden under section 123 of Customs Act, 1962 of proving that the goods were not smuggled. Accordingly, after following due process, the Additional Commissioner ordered ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and perused the records. The present case has not arisen as a baggage dispute otherwise this Tribunal would have no jurisdiction in deciding the matter. The seizure was made within the country on suspicion of the gold being smuggled. The gold was not seized as a baggage but it was seized as foreign marked gold with respect to which the possessor of the gold was responsible to prove under Section 123 that it is not smuggled. The appellant could not discharge the responsibility. In fact the gold was smuggled as it was not declared by the appellant while bringing into India. However, I find there is sufficient reason in the appeal showing that the appellant was returning to India after a period of 16 years and was ignorant of legal provisions. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 115, such fine shall not exceed the market price of the goods confiscated, less in the case of imported goods the duty chargeable thereon. (2) Where any fine in lieu of confiscation of goods is imposed under sub-section (1), the owner of such goods or the person referred to in sub-section (1), shall, in addition, be liable to any duty and charges payable in respect of such goods.] 7. Section 125 allows redemption in lieu of confiscation in all cases on payment of fine. If the goods are prohibited, the redemption may be allowed but if the goods are not prohibited, such redemption shall be allowed. There is no case where the redemption cannot be allowed at all under this Section. The facts and circumstances of ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
