Page 221 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] IN RE : MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA 755

He reiterated the request for cross-examination of the customs officers manning
x-ray machine and red channel counter as well as the witnesses present on the
date of seizure in the case.
4. Personal hearing in the matter was fixed on 5-11-2019. Sh. V.K.
Sharma, Superintendent, O/o the Commissioner of Customs (P), Jodhpur ap-
peared on behalf of the Customs authorities. Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma, PAX
along with his advocate Sh. Bipin Garg appeared on behalf of the PAX on 22-11-
2019.
Sh. V.K. Sharma, Superintendent contended that the penalty imposed on
the PAX by the adjudicating authority was reduced by Commissioner (Appeals)
which is erroneous and the penalty imposed as per O-I-O should be upheld since
a huge quantity of gold biscuits (70 nos.) valued at Rs. 2,51,89,735/- (Rupees Two
Crore Fifty One Lacs Eighty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Five)
along with foreign currency valued at UAE Dirham AED 1,05,410 (UAE Dirham
One Lac Five Thousand Four Hundred and Ten) and Indian currency valued at
Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) was seized from the PAX.
During the course of personal hearing the PAX has contended that he ar-
rived on 23-9-2012 from Dubai and was carrying 70 gold bars weighing 8 kg.
Approx valued at Rs. 2.5 crore approx, which were purchased by him in Dubai
since he is a permanent resident of UAE. Prior to this he had travelled to India 15
months earlier. Therefore he was eligible to carry 10 kgs of gold bars wherein he
was carrying only 8 kgs of gold bars (approx). He is the bona fide owner of the
impugned goods and had declared the impugned gold bars in the customs decla-
ration form which was handed over at the Red channel counter and misplaced
by the customs officer at the red channel. He subsequently submitted another
customs declaration form dated 23-9-2012 which does not mention the impugned
goods or their value.
His initial statement under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 was record-
ed on 23-9-2012. However he retracted from this statement on 27-9-2012. Subse-
quently the customs authorities recorded the second and third statement on 11-
10-2012 and 29-1-2013 under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 on his request
wherein all facts were stated regarding the bona fide purchase of the impugned
goods.
It has been contended that since gold is not a ‘prohibited item’ the same
should be released on redemption. In case it is not allowed to be released on re-
demption, he should be given an option for re-export. The absolutely confiscated
foreign currency amounting to UAE Dirham 1,05,410 should also be released to
him.
It is pertinent to mention that the PAX decided to withdraw the request
of cross-examination of witnesses and the customs officers at the time of personal
hearing before the Government on 22-11-2019. However the PAX vide his subse-
quent letter dated 26-11-2019 addressed to Government has retracted and re-
quested that he would want to cross-examine the concerned persons since his advocate,
who is dealing with the prosecution case filed by the customs authorities, has asked not to
forego the cross-examination as it will weaken the case.
5. In response to the letter dated 29-11-2019 issued by Revisionary Au-
thority’s office to him, he intimated that he is reiterating his request for cross-
examination of the same persons which he had made to the adjudicating authori-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  221