9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms, IGI Airport, Terminal-3, New Delhi regarding confiscation of one gold bracelet/kada and two gold chains cumulatively weighing 264.000 grams and valued at Rs. 6,27,982/-. The applicant was given an option of redemption on redemption fine of Rs. 1 lac within three months along with payment of applicable customs duty @ 36.05% within one month and a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been imposed on the applicant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was crossing the green channel on his arrival from Dubai on 16-12-2016, he was diverted for detailed examination of his baggage and frisking by way of hand held metal detector. It was found that the applicant was carrying one gold bra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or any request for adjournment has been received, the case is being taken up for final disposal. 5. On examination of the relevant case records, the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and the revision application it is evident that the impugned gold items were recovered from the applicant. He did not declare the same under Section 77 of Customs Act, 1962 to the customs authorities at the airport. Further the applicant has admitted the fact of recovery of impugned gold items from his body search in his statement tendered under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 on 16-2-2017. During personal hearing the applicant admitted that he did not get an export certificate made nor did he declare the impugned goods at the time of his arrival at IGI Air ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icant establishing his contention that impugned goods are of Indian origin except the invoices which cannot be treated as substantive evidence. The applicant was asked to give evidence regarding the mode of payment in respect of Purchase Invoices No. C-440, dated 13-5-2014 and No. C-668, dated 11-7-2014 and the fact that he was in India on these dates, i.e., the dates of purchase of impugned goods. Since the applicant has not furnished cogent evidence in support of his contention that the goods are of Indian origin the same cannot be accepted and is rejected. 7. It is observed that the applicant did not request for permission to re-export the impugned goods before the lower authorities. Government holds that re-export of the confiscat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
