IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI Customs Appeal No.40426 of 2021 (Arising out of Order in Original No.915/2015-AIR dated 28.11.2015 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai)

Vasavi Gold and Bullion Pvt. Ltd. Appellant No. 137, NSC Bose Road Chennai – 600 079.

Vs.

Commissioner of Customs Respondent Chennai VII Commissionerate Airport & Air Cargo Complex, New Customs House, Meenambakkam Chennai – 600 027. APPEARANCE:

Shri B. Satish Sundar, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Anoop Singh, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM Hon’ble Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical)

Hon’ble Shri Ajayan T.V., Member (Judicial)

FINAL ORDER NO. 40097/2026 Date of Hearing :24.07.2025 Date of Decision: 16.01.2026 Per M. Ajit Kumar, This appeal is filed by the appellant against Order in Original No.915/2015-AIR dated 28.11.2015 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai (impugned order).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, an IEC holder engaged in importing gold jewellery from Thailand, was subject to investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) regarding its import activities. The DRI alleged that the appellant evaded customs duty through the misuse of exemption benefits under Notification No. 85/2004-Cus dated 31.08.2004, read with Notification No. 01/2004-Cus (NT) dated 31.08.2004, across 48 bills of entry. Pursuant to a search of the business premises, the DRI discovered 15,245.800 grams of gold jewellery valued at Rs. 4,38,01,183/-, reportedly imported under the aforementioned exemption notifications. Following due legal process, the learned Adjudicating Authority denied the exemption benefits and demanded the payment of differential duty amounting to Rs. 19,03,19,798/- on goods cleared under the said bills of entry. Penalties were imposed pursuant to Sections 114AA and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 95,00,000/- was levied on Director Shri P. Seetharaman under Section 114AA of the Customs Act. The present appeal has arisen as a result of these proceedings.

3. The Ld. Counsel Shri B. Satish Sundar appeared for the appellant and Shri Anoop Singh, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared for the respondent.

3.1 Shri B. Satish Sundar the Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted the following time chart of dates and events.

DATES EVENTS April 2011 to Appellant entity imported gold jewellery from October 2012 Thailand in 48 consignments availing benefit of notification no.85/2044-Cus dated 31.08.2004 r/w notification no. 101/2004-Cus(NT) dated

31.08.2004

12.10.2012 The business premises of the appellant is searched DRI, Chennai Zonal Unit resulting in seizure of 15,245.800 grams of jewellery valued at Rs.4,38,01,183/-

15.10.2012 Statement is recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 from P. Seetharam, the then director of the appellant entity. He states that there may be value addition of 4-5% as mentioned in the invoice and further addition may be in the form of making charges and 22% of the jewellery is required to be manufactured in Thailand and the rest procured from other sources from the supplier.

The Ld. Counsel stated that;

A. The demand and its confirmation made under the SCN and OIO is premature as admittedly the Certificates Of Origin (COO) issued by the statutory authority had been questioned and a reference made to the designated authority of Kingdom of Thailand through Director General, DRI.

B. The proper officer of customs at the Aircargo Complex had verified all the import documents including the COO, which had not been questioned at the time of import. The ‘Interim Rules of Origin’ for preferential tariff concessions for trade between India and Thailand in terms of notification no. 101/2004-CUS(NT) is a complete code in itself an provides for a machinery to operationalise the origin of products eligible for preferential tariff concessions for early harvest scheme pursuant to framework agreement betwe