9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d bangles, valued at Rs. 19,71,900/- under section 111(d) and 111(I) of Customs Act, 1962 and imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,95,000/- under section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962, has been upheld while dropping the penalty imposed by the original authority under section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. 2. At the outset, the Learned Authorised Representative objected to the disposal of this appeal on the ground that the jurisdiction in a dispute relating to 'baggage' vested with the Government of India, in its revisionary authority, and was not under the appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 3. In our opinion, this view is misplaced as 'baggage' undoubtedly vests with the original and appellate authorities designated under the Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble High Court of Madras in which the Tribunal has been directed to dispose off the appeal without any delay. Before the Hon'ble High Court, Revenue did not appear to have expressed its reservations about the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and it is much too late in the day to raise this plea before the Tribunal. 4. Turning to the facts of the dispute, the appellant travelled from Kuala Lumpur by Malaysian Airlines flight no. MH 180 on 4th September 2016 and was intercepted with the impugned goods which has been certified by the assayer to be gold of '24 carat' purity. The goods were seized and, after waiver of show-cause notice by the appellant herein, offence was adjudicated upon with the consequence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... testing the report of the assayer, which is unreliable as '24 carat' gold jewellery cannot be manufactured as a durable article, she insists that failure to furnish the certificate is another reason to discard its evidentiary value. Her final contention is that section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 has been misdirected in the present instance because it is only on prohibited goods, and, that too, not mandatorily, can the denial of redemption be fastened. She places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Ambalal Moraji Soni v. Union of India & Other [AIR 1972 Guj 125], the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Vigneswaran Sethuraman v. Union of india [2014 (308) ELT 394 (Ker)] and the decision of Hon& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f any investigation and the existence of the mahazar alone as proof of the incident, we are constrained to note that concealment has not been established. Furthermore, there is no statement of anyone that could warrant the conclusion of deliberate intent to smuggle gold in any form. It is also seen that the proceedings have been based on the erroneous presumptions of the imported jewellery having been gold of '24 carat' purity which is practically not possible. 8. There is nothing on record to establish that the import of gold Jewellery is prohibited either under the Customs Act, 1962 or under any other law for the time being in force. under section 33 of the Foreign Trade, Development and Regulation Act, 1992, it is on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
