9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs Act, 1962 and Import-Export Policy of 2015-2020 or whether it was a legitimate re-import of exported goods? It is found that the Assessing Officer after scrutiny of all the relevant documents and on satisfaction has allowed the clearance of re-imported gold jewellery and had endorsed that the imported gold jewellery was same which had been exported under the two shipping bills - the Department has not adduced any evidence to establish that the re-imported gold jewellery is not which have been exported by the appellant for exhibition purpose - also there might have been certain violations in following the procedure for proper importation of these goods, however, same will also not make the Indian made gold jewellery as prohibited goods as per the provision of Customs Act, 1962 read with the provisions of the Import-Export Policy 2015-2020. It is also matter of record that documents as required for re-import of the exported goods as provided under Notification No. 45/2017 dated 30 June 2017, read with the clarification No. 21/2019 dated 24 April 2019 is that the goods should be same as has been exported for the exhibition purpose and in the present case it is not mentioned by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s proper records of its business transactions, which are subject to audit under various tax laws. 4. Advance Authorisation Scheme: Under the Advance Authorisation Scheme, in terms of para 4.37 of FTP, Handbook of Procedure, 2015-20, read with Customs Notification No. 18/2015 dated 01.04.2015, appellant imports gold, wherein the gold bar(s) have unique identification Nos., which are mentioned in the packing list filed with the Bill of Entry. Out of last import of 50 Kgs. vide Bill of Entry No. 2873828 dated 17.04.2019, stock of 31.1 kg. have been detained by DRI, from the registered workshop cum business premises on 25.04.2019. the details of seizure are- 25,000 gms Gold bars (25 Nos.) 26,404 gms W.I.P. (gold bar pieces, gold dust, assorted gold jewellery) 5. Out of above, it is urged that gold bars weighing 22 kg. (22 nos.) tallies with packing list forming part of bill of entry No. 2873828. Part of gold under the said bill of entry was used in manufacture of ornaments which were exported vide Export Invoice No. ITS/EXP/04 dated 20.04.2019. It is further urged by appellant that due to continuous detention/ seizure of gold stock in trade, appellant could not complete the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of detained goods on 08.05.2019. Again by application dated 31.07.2019 applied for provisional release, explaining in detail the source and licit possession. As the detained/ seized jewellery and bars etc. were not released, appellant moved before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 8707/2019. By order dated 09.08.2019 the Hon'ble High Court directed the respondent authority to decide the representation dated 31.07.2019 for provisional release, within a period of four weeks. As the issue remained pending, the Hon'ble High Court in Cont. case (C) 875/2019, by order dated 24.09.2019, directed the respondent authority to decide the issue of provisional release within further two weeks. 10. Thereafter the appellant on 30.09.2019 received notice for personal hearing in provisional release matter. On the same date they were also served with a show cause notice dated 26.09.2019 requiring to show cause, as to why not the seized jewellery, gold bars, etc. be not confiscated under Section 111(d),(j), (l) and (o) of the Customs Act. 11. That personal hearings were held in provisional release matter on the next day, i.e. 01.09.2019, followed by written submission on 03.10.2019. 12. That ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Customs Act, which provides that pending adjudication, the goods, documents, etc. be released to the owner on taking a bond from him with such security and conditions, as the adjudicating authority may require. The refusal to even consider provisional release before adjudication is arbitrary, without application of mind and at the same time in violation of the directive/ order(s) of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Further the order is cryptic and non-speaking. 14. It is further urged that the seized goods have been prima facie explained, as regards its licit possession. The appellant is a manufacturer & exporter of jewellery, possessing proper licence and authorisation, etc. 15. It is further urged that 'gold' is not a prohibited goods. Appellant had observed the stipulated procedures under the FTP, Handbook of Procedures, Notifications, etc. At best, the allegations of Revenue in the show cause notice, are for non-compliance of procedural aspect with respect to re-imported gold jewellery immaculately, which was taken out under Exhibition Scheme (in case of unregistered bill of entry). In respect to other seizures, the same is based on assumptions and presumptions only. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... repancy made out by Revenue. Out of 25 gold bars (1 kg. each), found at factory, I.D. No. of 22 bars matched with the import documents, 3 bars were purchased in DTA from 'Shiv Shakti Overseas', under proper invoice. It is a common trade practice, when gold bars are resold in DTA, the I.D. nos. are defaced by sellor. 22. It is further urged that reliance by revenue on the ruling of Madras High Court in Malabar Diamond Gallery (P) Ltd. vs. A.G. & Ors. (infra) is misplaced. The facts are entirely different. Malabar D.G. case was one of outright smuggling of gold jewellery of Singapore origin, without filing any declaration and/or payment of applicable customs duty. 23. The learned Counsel have relied on the following rulings- i) M. D. Overseas Ltd., vs. Union of India -2017 (355) ELT 185 (Del.) ii) Mink Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India -2018 (8) GSTL 129 (Del.) iii) Union of India vs. Imtiaz Iqbal Pothiawala -2019 (365) ELT 167 (Bom) iv) Horizon Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India -2016 (340) ELT 27 (P&H) v) Worldline Tradex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import) -2016 (340) ELT 174 (Del.) The learned Counsel prayed for release of the detained/se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endorsed colour photographs of jewellery, the bill of entries for re-import alongwith packing list covering details of jewellery items of import alongwith the photocopies of the jewellery. We find that authenticity of the goods being re-imported being same as had been exported by two shipping bills as mentioned above, has not been doubted by the Department. We find that the Department has not adduced any evidence to contradict the fact that the same jewellery has been imported by the appellant which had been exported for exhibition purpose. At this juncture, we are only examining whether the import of the subject seized gold jewellery was in violation of any of the provision of Customs Act, 1962 and Import-Export Policy of 2015-2020 or whether it was a legitimate re-import of exported goods. We find that the Assessing Officer after scrutiny of all the relevant documents and on satisfaction has allowed the clearance of re-imported gold jewellery and had endorsed that the imported gold jewellery was same which had been exported under the two shipping bills (as mentioned in preceding paras). We find that the Department has not adduced any evidence to establish that the re-imported go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... import have been assessed at the nil rate of duty under Advance Authorization No. 0510409190 dated 4 January 2019 for import of gold bar having purity of 0.995. It's a matter of record that 50 gold bars had been imported by the appellant under bill of entry No. 2873288 dated 17 April 2019 which are having specific and unique bar number. On verification of the unique bar number of the seized gold bars with the gold bars imported vide above-mentioned bill of entry having packing list dated 15 April 2019 for the invoice H-3470, we find that 22 gold bars weighing 1 kg. each totaling weighing 22 kg., absolutely tallies with the gold bar numbers which was imported under the bill of entry No. 2873288. It is also a matter of record that the main 'Karigar' of the appellant who was supervising manufacturing of gold jewellery has categorically mentioned that from the imported gold bars he has made jewellery of 7 kg. and certain other jewellery and certain quantities were 'work-under progress' in the form of gold, dust and other pieces of jewellery at different stages of manufacturing. We also find that the appellant have also made certain purchases of the gold from the local market and for w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
