9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal allowed. - Custom Appeal No. 50146 of 2020 (SM) - Final Order No. 51025/2021 - Dated:- 21-1-2021 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri S. Sunil, Advocate - for the appellant Shri Jasbir Singh, AR - for the respondent ORDER The appellant is a qualified MBA and lives in U.K. and is working there since November, 2008 for livelihood, the appellant is citizen of India, resident of Srinagar (J K). The appellant arrived in India from U.K. on 23.09.2015 in the morning and after Customs clearance, he came out of the airport at New Delhi. Thereafter, in day time, he went to the P.P. Jewellers, Karol Bagh, from where he took delivery of 2 gold bangles for which he had placed orders earlier and was issued sales invoice no.10278. On the same day, in the evening, he was in the process of boarding domestic flight to Srinagar at Terminal T-1D. As he was carrying two gold bangles and was also in possession of 151 gold coins, he was detained by the CISF at the airport and was handed over to the Air Intelligence Unit of Income Tax at the airport. The AIU officers recovered 151 yellow metal coins appearing to be gold along with 2 bangles of yellow metal appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Weight (In grams) Value Appraised (Rs.) 151 gold coins of 916 purity and each coin weighing eight (8)gms. Each coin has marking as given below: Side 1: picture of man facing towards left depicted in centre and EDWARDVS VII D:G: BRITT: OMN: REX:F:D: IND: IMP: marked on the circumference. Side 2 : picture of warrior with sword in his hand and riding a member of equine family. No. from 1902 to 1910 marked on coins and each coin having only one number. 1,208 26,92,149/- Total 1,208 26,92,149/ 3. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, wherein he, inter alia, stated that he was resident of 90, Rochfords Gardens, Slough, SL 2, XJ, United Kingdom and possessing Indian passport No.F9179966 dated 03.08.2006. He had gone to UK to pursue his MBA and got admission in University of Northampton, from where he has completed his MBA in November, 2008. Thereafter, he started working in UK as Supply Chain Administrator in TESCO till December, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces/documents in respect of 151 gold coins recovered and seized under Panchnama dated 23/24.09.2015. 4. The appellant appeared on 30.09.2015 and submitted the following documents vide covering letter dated 30.09.2015:- (a) Marriage Certificate in original (order version) and (b) Its translation in English; (c) Affidavit of his mother-in-law (Ms. Hajra) and photocopy of her passport. (d) Property valuation documents of his mother-inlaw by an approved Government valuer. (e) Chartered Accountant‟s certificate of his mother-in-law. 5. On perusal of the marriage certificate of the appellant dated 14.10.2011 with Ms. Fozia Muzaffar, the details of dower and other gifts were mentioned as follows:- The amount of dower mutually agreed; ₹ 1,30,000/- INR in the form of Gold (Jewellery /coins) The portion of dower that has been disbursed. ₹ 1,30,000/- INR in the form of Gold (Jewellery /Coins) The portion of dower willingly remitted by the bride X The portion of the dower yet to be disbursed by the bridegroom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lar import tantamounts to smuggling, as gold is restricted item. It also appeared that, in Marriage Certificate (Nikah Nama), there is mention of only mehar and gifts made to the bride by the bridegroom. Thus, it appeared to Revenue that the appellant has not properly explained licit possession of 151 gold coins and the explanation given is not tenable, and further, it appears a case of illegal import of gold coins. Further, it also appeared that as per Section 123 of the Act, the onus is on the appellant to prove the licit possession of the gold coins. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued on the appellant requiring to show cause why 151 gold coins totally weighing 1208 gms. valued at ₹ 26,92,149/- seized from his personal possession under Panchnama dated 23/24.09.2015 should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) (i) of the Customs Act, 1962. 8. The appellant contested the show cause notice by filing the reply denying the allegations, stating that the said gold coins in question are of Indian origin. As per the Appraisement Report, the coins belongs to British era of the period 1902 to 1910, pertaining to the King Edward VII, who reined during the period 1901 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd VII was the emperor of India during the period 1902 to 1910 and his photo/bust depicted on the coins and inscription on the coins state him as the Emperor of India. Thus, the gold coins in question being in circulation under monetary system, which prevailed in India during the pre-independence period are definitely of Indian origin. The gold coins were used in monetary/exchange system and thus, were part of the fiscal system prevailing in the country during the either period. Thus, the charge of smuggling (based on assumption) does not stand and is fit to be dropped. It was further urged that as required under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the appellant has discharged the onus ipso facto, as the gold coins in question are of Indian origin. 11. Further, it was contended that there was no duty leviable on gold coins, nor there was any declaration required at the time of arrival in UK. It was further urged that it is a case of town seizure‟ by CISF at the domestic terminal, and hence, rigours of the Customs Act are not attracted. 12. It is further contended that the provisions of Section 111 (d) and (i) applies only when the goods are imported and attempte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for India‟ and Emperor of India‟ respectively. Such coins were part of the monetary system and were legal tender under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Such coins are of Indian origin and lying with the citizens or people of India as the treasure and changing hand generation to generation. It is further urged that the allegation of foreign origin is based on conjecture and surmises of the Custom authority. As the authorised valuer has not certified the seized coins being of foreign orgin. It is further urged that the Court below have erred in placing selective reliance on the statement of the appellant. Admittedly, it is a case of town seizure. The appellant stated in his statement recorded under Section 108 at the time of seizure, that he had these coins in India with him and are of his family and he had taken these coins to U.K. in November, 2011 and he has brought back the same coins in September, 2015. Thus, the Court below have erred in relying on only half statement, and on that part of the statement which suits them, which is not permissible. The statement have to be read as the whole in evidence, and that part were in the appellant have stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
