Page 201 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] IN RE : AJAY GUPTA 735

2020 (372) E.L.T. 735 (G.O.I.)
BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE
[Department of Revenue - Revisionary Authority]
Ms. Mallika Arya, Additional Secretary
IN RE : AJAY GUPTA

Order No. 2/2020-Cus., dated 1-1-2020 in F.No. 375/16/B/2018-RA
Re-export of confiscated goods - Permission to re-export gold articles
not sought before Lower Authorities - Hence, re-export of confiscated goods
cannot be considered at stage of revision - Revision application rejected - Sec-
tion 111 of Customs Act, 1962. [paras 6, 7]
Application rejected
[Order]. - A Revision Application No. 375/16/B/2018-RA, dated 1-3-
2018 has been filed by Mr. Ajay Gupta (hereinafter referred to as the applicant)
against the Order-in-Appeal No. CC (A) Cus/D-I/Air/546/2017, dated 30-11-
2017 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Customs House,
Near IGI Airport, Delhi-110037. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Order
Bearing No. 301/2016-17, dated 15-4-2017 of the Additional Commissioner of
Customs, 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 applica-
ble 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 de-
tailed examination of his baggage and frisking by way of hand held metal detec-
tor. It was found that the applicant was carrying one gold bracelet/kada weigh-
ing 31.8 grams and two gold chains weighing 232.2 grams. All these items were
of 22k 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. Personal hearing was fixed on 9-12-2019 in this case. Sh. S.S. Arora,
advocate appeared on behalf of the applicant and reiterated the grounds of revi-
sion application. He contended that the impugned gold items were of Indian
origin and were purchased in 2014. The applicant did not get an export certificate
made at the time of departure while he was carrying the impugned items to Du-
bai. Further he did not declare the impugned goods at the time of his arrival at
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  201