9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvoices 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. 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 confiscated goods cannot be considered at this stage - It is held that the adjudicating authority has correctly imposed redemption fine of ₹ 1 lac (Rupees One Lac) for release of goods along with applicable customs duty @ 36.05%. The said Order-in- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purity. The passenger was coming after 2 days and his total stay abroad was less than six months. A statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was recorded wherein he admitted that the impugned gold was recovered from his body search. 3. The revision application has been filed on the grounds that the gold was purchased by the applicant from M/s. Kishan Lal Jewelers Pvt. Ltd. in India and he should be allowed to clear the gold jewellery without redemption fine, personal penalty and customs duty. He further submitted that as the applicant is a resident of Dubai and at the time of arrival at the airport he was wearing gold items on his body and it was not concealed. He may be allowed to re-export the impugned goods. 4. Persona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006, Bearing Nos. C-440, dated 13-5-2014 and C-668, dated 11-7-2014 regarding purchase of impugned items in India. 6 . Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962 reads as follows : 123. Burden of proof in certain cases . - (1) Where any goods to which this section applies are seized under this Act in the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods, the burden of proving that they are not smuggled goods shall be - (a) in a case where such seizure is made from the possession of any person, - (i) on the person from whose possession the goods were seized; and (ii) if any person, other than the person from whose possession the goods were seized, claims to be the owner thereof, also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
