Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1991 (1) TMI 293

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d order and absolutely confiscating goods such as crockery, toilet requisites, wearing apparels, miscellaneous goods all valued at Rs. 11,462/- under Sec. 111(p) of the Customs Act, 1962 ( the Act for short) besides a penalty of Rs. 5000/- under Sec. 112 of the Act. On 15-2-1988 the Customs officers searched the appellant s shop under the name and style Estate Departments Stores at Santhome High Road, Madras and found him in possession of various goods such as cosmetics, toilet requisites, crockeries etc. of foreign origin along with various other goods of Indian origin kept in the Departmental store. Since the authorities had reason to believe that the goods were kept in contravention of law and in violation of the provisions of the Bag .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ere notified goods under Chap. IVA and confiscable under Sec. 111(p) of the Act. It was contended that this finding of the adjudicating authority is not sustainable on facts or in law. It was urged that out of goods valued Rs. 11,462/- only goods worth Rs. 1,300/- are notified and the rest valued at Rs. 10,162/- are non-notified goods which fact, according to the Ld. consultants, has been lost sight by the Ld. adjudicating authority. So far as the non-notified goods are concerned it was urged that the onus is on the department to prove that they are contraband goods and in the present case evidence was produced before the authorities for the number of trips the appellant, his wife, son, daughter, daughter-in-law have gone abroad between the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In this context it was fervently urged that in respect of the fine of Rs.5000/- in lieu of confiscation of the notified goods under Chapter IVA valued at Rs. 12,150/- only goods of small value are notified goods such as toilet requisites etc. while the rest of the goods are non-notified goods. 3. Shri P. Sundararaju, Ld. SDR contended that even though goods brought under baggage would be permissible for being gifted, a gift can normally be understood only as one given out of love and affection between relatives and friends and a gift cannot be given with a commercial motive to boost one s trade. Regarding the plea that except the goods worth Rs. 1,300/- (out of the goods valued Rs. 11,462, viz. goods under absolute confiscation), the res .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 86 (Tri.)] has held that, When the goods are neither notified under Sec. 123 nor under Chapter IVA of the Customs Act, 1962, presumption under Sec. 123 cannot be invoked that the goods must have been smuggled. The fact that goods are of foreign origin, have been imported and seized on specific information do not justify the presumption as to their smuggled character. The burden to prove their smuggled character lies on the Customs which has not been discharged. Confiscation thereof is, therefore, not justified. The same view is reiterated in another ruling of the Bench in the case of Hindustan Electronics v. Collr. of Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh , reported in 1987 (31) E.L.T. 252 (Tribunal). The West Regional Bench also ta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd any evidence on record to show that any of the foreign goods was sold by the appellant to any person. In regard to price tags on foreign goods, it was contended that it was not in all the goods but only in some of the items merely to indicate the value of the gift to the buyer of Indian goods in the departmental store. Therefore, on consideration of the evidence on record and for the reasons set out above, I set aside the order of confiscation in regard to non-notified goods valued at Rs. 10,162/- and referred to above. So far as the rest of the goods which are notified and valued at Rs. 1,300/- is concerned, I hold that they are liable for confiscation for violation of Chapter IVA of the Customs Act, 1962 and having regard to the value, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates