9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appeal against personal penalty and confiscation of goods under Customs Act. 2. Allegation of sale of goods in contravention of I.T.C. regulations. 3. Compliance with Section 129-A(2) of the Customs Act. 4. Compliance with Section 124 of the Customs Act. 5. Justification of order by Collector (Appeals) in setting aside penalty and confiscation. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the personal penalty and confiscation of goods imposed by the Assistant Collector of Customs. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) set aside the penalty and confiscation, stating that there was no violation of the restriction imposed under para 11-G of I.T.C. order as the goods were meant for personal use and not for profit. The Collector (Appeals) found the confiscation order to be harsh and unjustified, leading to the dismissal of the penalty and confiscation. 2. The Departmental Representative argued that the goods, a T.V. and V.C.R., were sold in contravention of I.T.C. regulations. The Collector (Appeals) was criticized for not considering the conditions regarding the sale of the goods, specifically the restriction on selling the T.V. before 5 years and the V.C.R. before its value depreciated by 50%. However, the respondents contended that there was no sale but a gift from nephew to uncle, and the Collector (Appeals) correctly analyzed the situation, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. 3. The respondents argued that the order of the Collector (Appeals) was neither illegal nor improper, as it was based on a proper examination of the facts and circumstances. It was contended that even if there was a sale, the situation did not warrant confiscation or penalty. The value of the V.C.R. had depreciated by more than 50%, indicating compliance with I.T.C. conditions. 4. The judgment highlighted non-compliance with Section 124 of the Customs Act, which requires proper notice and representation before confiscation. The Assistant Collector's failure to inform the respondents of the grounds for confiscation orally or in writing rendered the confiscation order liable to be set aside. 5. The judgment emphasized that the first respondent was not aware of any violation and had lawfully purchased the goods cleared as baggage. The absence of proof of knowledge precluded confiscation and penalty. Regarding the second respondent, the order noted the lack of evidence regarding the value of the V.C.R. at clearance and disposal. It was concluded that there was no sale, and the import of goods was legal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed as there was no merit in challenging the order of the Collector (Appeals) setting aside the penalty and confiscation based on a thorough examination of the facts and legal provisions.
|
