Back
MUKTA GUPTA, C. HARI SHANKAR
Additional Director General (Adjudication) – Appellant
Versus
It. S My Name Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
C. Hari Shankar, J.
REVIEW PET. 117/2020 (filed by respondent) & CM APPL. 20797/2022
1. This order disposes of Review Petition 117/2020, preferred by the respondent, seeking review of the judgment dated 1st June 2020, whereby we had disposed of CUSAA 229/2019.
2. The circumstances in which this Review Petition came to be filed have a bearing on its fate; ergo, it would be appropriate to chart the course of proceedings, till its filing, albeit briefly.
3. Gold, imported into India by the respondent, was seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), in part from the workshop/factory premises of the respondent and in part from the Airport, after the gold had crossed the Customs barrier. The respondent disputes the legitimacy of the seizure, contending that the gold had been earlier exported by the respondent and was being re-imported into India within a year of export, and was entitled, therefore, to complete duty exemption under S. No. 5 of Notification 45/2017-Cus dated 30th June 2017, as further clarified by CBIC Circulars Nos 21/2019-Cus dated 24th July 2019 and 108/27/2019-GST dated 18th July 2019. A Show Cause Notice came to be issued by the DRI to the respo
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the findings of fact cannot be revisited unless they suffer from manifest perversity, and the court's decision was based on the positive fi....
Legal importation of gold requires compliance with customs duty and declaration; failure to declare renders goods liable for confiscation, but redemption options exist under the Act.
The court ruled that gold jewellery worn by a foreign national upon entering India is considered personal effects and cannot be confiscated without clear legal prohibition.
The court affirmed that personal jewellery should not be excluded from the category of personal effects under the Baggage Rules, ensuring fair treatment for bona fide tourists.
Gold and jewellary are freely importable items.Passing through green channel itself is declaration of there being no dutiable goods, more so when there is no attempt to conceal the goods. Intention o....
The court ruled that the Baggage Rules, 2016, cannot exceed or restrict the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly regarding personal ornaments worn by travelers.
Personal jewellery carried by a passenger is not subject to customs restrictions if not intended for import, emphasizing the need for clear guidelines from customs authorities.
The Baggage Rules do not apply to jewelry worn by travelers, limiting customs authority in seizing sentimental cultural items, framed as ultra vires under Section 79 of the Customs Act.
Personal jewelry worn by travelers qualifies as personal effects exempt from customs duties, regardless of its value, unless explicitly defined otherwise in customs regulations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
