TMI Blog1983 (2) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any document showing the lawful acquisition/import of goods. After investigation, a notice was issued on 18-6-77 by the Assistant Collector Customs (Preventive), Delhi, to the party to show cause why the said lenses should not be confiscated u/s lll(d) of the Customs Act 1962, for violation of Section 11 read with Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 issued under Section 3 of the Imports Exports Control Act, 1947. In his reply and during personal hearing, Shri Radhakrishan pleaded that these lenses had been imported under Bill of Entry No. 1576/131, dated 20-3-71 at Bombay Port against an Import Licence dated 6-5-70 and that these lenses had been released after imposing a fine in lieu of confiscation, since they were found to be bifocal l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the goods imported at Bombay, their stand was not acceptable. While upholding the order of the Assistant Collector, however, an option was given to the party to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 15,000/-. 4. A revision application was then filed before the Government of India and this has been transferred to the Appellate Tribunal to be dealt with in accordance with Section 131B(2) of the Customs Act. 5. Shri B. Saxena, Advocate for the Appellant, submitted a letter of authority from a firm named Delton , who had an import licence as actual users, under which Shri Gupta had imported lenses from USA. These lenses were released after adjudication. Shri Gupta, it was urged, was perturbed at the time of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The order of the Appellate Collector is also against the law since there could not be two adjudication orders namely, by the Assistant Collectors, Bombay and Delhi, for the same goods. Counsel pleaded that the order may be set aside and the goods restored. 6. The case for the Department was argued by Shri Yuvraj Gupta, Senior Departmental Representative. He pointed out that if the party had made Voluntary Disclosure of receipt of 3000 lenses to the Income Tax authorities, they should have maintained proper accounts to satisfy the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence at the time of seizure. He did not agree that the term bifocal was synonymous with multifocal and trifocal . There was no double adjudication, as contend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt the order of the Appellate Collector has force and confiscation and penalty are in order. 8. The Tribunal, however, takes note of the fact that lenses are not notified goods under Chapter IV-A of the Customs Act requiring meticulous accounting at every stage. There is evidence that this party had access to 3000 bifocal lenses being part of 5000 lenses covered by a Bill of Entry, dated 20-3-71 and cleared on payment of Customs duty totaling Rs. 9163/- and a fine of Rs. 5000/- after adjudication at Bombay. All the seized bifocal lenses might not, therefore, be tarred with the brush of illegal import. The Department had also not been able to establish where and when the illegal import of the lenses took place and whether it was by air, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
