AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sl. No.,Description of Item,"Total 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: BRIT
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
T:","26,92,149/-
,Total,"1,208","26,92,149/-
The amount of dower mutually agreed;,"Rs.1,30,000/- INR in the form of Gold
(Jewellery /coins)",,
The portion of dower that has been disbursed.,"Rs.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,,
Value of additional gifts or jewellery or value of
coins at that time","Rs.7,55,000/- INR",,
Portion of additional gifts or jewellery or value of
coins at that time pending with bridegroom.",X,,
per Entry No. 321 and 322 of Notification No.12/2012-Customs dated 17.03.2012, the same are not applicable as the coins in question are of purity of",,,
916 (determined by the appraising officer in his report), which is less than the prescribed limit of 99.5% purity. Since the coins are free items as per",,,
FT Policy, these cannot be termed as prohibited goods. The provisions of Section 2(33) defining prohibited goods’ are not attracted as the gold",,,
coins are of Indian origin.,,,
The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 30 March, 2017 holding that the appellant knowingly involved in illegal",,,
import and handling of gold coins and was in conscious possession and control of seized gold coins of foreign origin. He brought the seized gold coins,,,
from London into India illegally without declaring the same to Customs and failed to discharge the onus that the seized gold was not smuggled goods.,,,
Further observed that the appellant have committed acts of omission and commission. Accordingly, the seized gold coins were ordered to be",,,
confiscated under Section 111(d) and (i) of the Act read with Section 120 of the Act. Further penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed under Section 112,,,
of the Act.,,,
Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) was pleased to observe",,,
that the legal possession of the seized gold coins is not proved and hence upheld the invocation of Section 111(d) and (i) observing that the impugned,,,
goods have been imported by way of smuggling and are prohibited goods. Hence absolute confiscation is justified. It was further observed that the,,,
appellant failed to prove that the coins were of Indian origin. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before",,,
this Tribunal.,,,
Heard the parties.,,,
Learned Counsel for the appellant urging the grounds of appeal submits that as the coins pertained to British India period of 1902 to 1910, depicting",,,
the bust of King Edward VII, who was the Emperor of India during the said period, as India was under the British rule. The letters inscribed on the",,,
circumference “IND†and “IMP†stand 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 he had the coins available with him in India and he had taken to U.K. from India in November, 2011, cannot be",,,
ignored. If the whole statement is read together, there is admittedly no case of smuggling as the gold coins are of Indian origin which were legal tender",,,
during the British India period, had been taken to U.K. in 2011 and brought back in 2015. It is further urged that the presumption under Section 123 in",,,
favour of Revenue is not available in the facts of the present case. It is further urged that the appellant have led sufficient proof that he and his family,,,
are of good financial standing and were possessing gold coins and have also received gold coins at the time of his marriage in gifts. The whole case of,,,
Revenue is based on the allegation, that the gold coins being of foreign origin, which is a mistake of fact and accordingly, the impugned order is fit to",,,
be set aside and the appeal allowed. It is further urged that the motherin-law of the appellant have also stated on affidavit that their family had gifted,,,
gold coins to the appellant and her daughter at the time of marriage. It is further urged that the Court below have failed to appreciate that gold coins,,,
are classified in ITS(HS) at Sr. No. 7726 under Heading 71189000, and as per policy these are free items, there was no restriction for import or",,,
export. It is further urged that the provisions of Section 111(d) and (i) of the Act are not applicable in the facts and circumstances, there being no",,,
import of prohibited goods or dutiable goods. It is further urged that the provisions of Entry No. 321 and 322 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. are not,,,
applicable as the coins under seizure are of purity 916 (as determined by the jewellery appraiser) which is less than the prescribed limit of 99.5%,,,
purity. Thus, the coins are free items under Foreign Trade Policy and have been wrongly termed as prohibited goods by the Court below. Accordingly,",,,
learned Counsel prays for allowing the appeal with consequential benefits.,,,
The learned Authorised Representative for Revenue relies on the impugned order.,,,
Having considered the rival contentions, I find that admittedly the seized gold coins are of Indian origin even the approved valuer have not certified",,,
the seized gold coins as of foreign origin. Further, I find that the inscription on the coins evidently prove that the gold coins are of Indian origin, and",,,
were part of the monetary system and were in circulation during the British India period. Admittedly, Kind Edward VII, was the emperor of U.K. and",,,
India was under British Rule during the relevant period, and thus there is no anomaly as to the Indian origin of the gold coins. The allegation by",,,
Revenue that the gold coins are of foreign origin has got no basis, and is a wild guess work. The inscription on the gold coins ipso fact prove that the",,,
gold coins as are of Indian origin. The impugned order is vitiated for placing selective reliance on the statement of appellant under Section 108. I,,,
further find that the presumption in favour of Revenue under Section 123 is not attracted in the facts and circumstances. Accordingly, I find that the",,,
impugned order is not sustainable and I set aside the same. The appeal is allowed. The appellant is entitled to consequential benefits.,,,
The Revenue authority is directed to return the gold coins forthwith to the appellant or his Authorised Representative within 45 days from the date,,,
of receipt/service of the copy of this order.,,,
(Pronounced in Court on 21.01.2021),,,