Delhi High Court
M/S P C Jeweller (Export) vs Commississioner Of Customs ... on 25 March, 2015
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: March 25,2015
+ CUS.A.C. 4/2014
M/s P C JEWELLER (EXPORT) ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Roshan Santhalia, Adv.
versus
COMMISSISSIONER OF CUSTOMS EXPORT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Kamal Nijhawan, Sr.Standing
counsel with Mr.Sumit Gaur, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
%
1. The present appeal is directed against the order of Customs, Excise &
Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated 21.02.2014 in Customs
Appeal No. C/510/2009-CU (DB). The appellant was aggrieved by the
imposition of ₹3 lakhs as penalty and redemption fine of ₹1 lakh. Appellant
had sought benefit of notification No.52/2003 and claimed that certain
quantity of gold jewellery imported by it was for the purpose of re-export
after repair/remaking. Customs authority at the time of importation of
jewellery, examined the same. Out of four items, one weighing 3197.200
gms finished ladies gold chain (twisted rope type), normally worn with
pendants, was assessed to be falling within the purview of Show Cause
Notice (SCN), since it was a marketable commodity. The assessee upon
being served the SCN dated 27.05.2009, resistedly proceeded in contending
that these chains are to be assembled with mountings received in the said
consignment in semi finished condition. The mountings are to be studded
with required studdings and chains are to be assembled with mountings and
remade items to make them complete item of jewellery, further these are to
be polished and finished to make them salealbe in international market.
2. The assessee/appellant also stated that it was under a bonafide belief
that it was entitled to get jewellery for export after repair or re-make. The
Customs Commissioner had vide order in original dated 03.06.2009
confirmed the SCN and imposed penalty to the extent of ₹3 lakhs and
redemption fine to the tune of ₹ 1 lakh. This order was appealed against, the
CESTAT vide impugned order rejected the appeal. It is argued on behalf of
the appellant that firstly the CESTAT summarily rejected the appeal and
that this was a pattern given that it had considered the merits of the
contentions and passed an unreasoned order. Secondly, it was urged that
among five items which were scrutinized, four were allowed the benefit of
exemption of notification. Learned counsel stated that similar goods were
also furnished and marketable, nevertheless the customs authority held that
they could receive the benefit of exemption. However, the customs authority
in an unreasoned manner rejected the exemption in favour of the one item in
question. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
submitted that the impugned order does not require interference. He pointed
out that the appraiser report was never challenged, giving the clear finding
that the ladies gold chain was finished in nature. The notification which the
appellant relies upon - dated 31.03.2003 (No.52/2003), enables importation
of gold jewellery for remake. The importation of old gold/platinum/silver
jewellery, if imported for repair or remake for re-export, is exempted from
payment of custom duty. The appraiser report - which does not appear to
have been challenged in the present instance, clearly points out that
3197.200 gms gold chain, were "finished" and compared with the other
items imported - concededly three of them were not marketable. The
appellant urges that one of the items allowed to be imported, described as
„assorted gold bangles of different designs/sizes, appears to be old but not
used‟, like subject goods were finished products. However, this Court
notices that the description itself facially suggests that these items were
lacking in lusture and further processing such as polishing would enhance
the lusture to make the product for marketable. The exercise of appraisal
not having been challenged, the terms of the notification itself permit a
certain element of discretion with the customs authority, who after taking
into account the nature of the goods could permit them to be imported as
items prescribed or determine the duty. That discretion having been
exercised in the first instance and the appellant having been given a hearing
at the show cause stage, this Court does not see any question of law which
can be termed as substantial to engage attention. All the disputes sought to
be urged relate to findings of facts, the appeal is consequently dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
R.K.GAUBA, J
MARCH 25, 2015
mr
