TMI Blog1986 (1) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asonic Radio Cassette Recorder of japanese make valued at Rs. 3,000/-. The appellant produced a baggage receipt, dated 20-12-1982 in the name of one Mr. Venkataraman of Madras and a Radio licence No. 68628, dated 5-1-1983 issued in his cousin s name. When questioned, the appellant submitted that he had purchased the said Radio Cassette Recorder in open market and he was also given the baggage receipt. He pleaded that he is a bonafide purchaser. After the completion of the investigation, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant, as to why the goods should not be confiscated under Sections 111(d) and 111(p) of the Customs Act alleging contravention of Sections 11 and 11B of the Customs Act. It was also alleged that there was violation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. 7. I have considered the submissions made on both the sides. According to the Customs valuation and according to the order of the Superintendent, the value of the goods is Rs. 3,000/-. It is not clear how the Superintendent of Customs got jurisdiction to adjudge confiscation. Under Section 122 the power of adjudication is conferred on a gazetted officer of Customs lower in rank than an Assistant Collector of Customs if the value of goods liable to confiscation does not exceed Rs. 2,500/-. The adjudication itself is unauthorised. 8. The order of the Superintendent clearly shows that the baggage receipt produced by the appellant was a genuine receipt. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the goods in question was illegally imported a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und that the appellant had violated the provisions of the Baggage (Condition of Exemption) Rules, 1975. The condition, according to the Collector (Appeals) which was violated, was that the value of the goods had been depreciated to less than 50%. In his order, the Collector (Appeals) did not state that the goods in question was cleared without payment of duty. If the goods had been cleared on payment of duty, there is no scope to apply the provisions of Baggage (Conditions of Exemption) Rules, 1975. Even assuming that the said provisions are attached, it is necessary for the Department to establish the nature of the goods when it was new and the value when it was transferred or sold. There is no evidence that the goods was new or as to it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
