9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (10) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrived from London with the two Betacam Recorder referred to above. He declared these two items and claimed clearance in terms of Tourist Baggage Rules, 1978 on giving an undertaking to the Assistant Collector of Customs that these two equipments would be re-exported within six months. This request was agreed to and they were allowed clearance on issue of a Tourist Baggage Re-export form, after suitably endorsing on his passport. On 31-1-1991, he sought for permission to visit abroad for a month with effect from 1-2-1991. He was allowed to go abroad after taking a bank guarantee covering the duty amount. A demand notice dated 22-6-1991 was reported to have been issued for failure to comply with the conditions of the bank guarantee. In the meanwhile, during the course of review of TBRE documents, the Customs authorities, claim to have found out that the Respondent's claim for clearance of the goods on TBRE is on misrepresentation, because of existence of proforma invoice, ITC licence (CCP) etc, which seem to confirm the fact that the equipments in fact belonged to M/s. Studio Plus owned by M/s. Cox & Kings India - a travel agency in India and the same have been imported for their us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only Rs. 1.00 lac without imposing penalty is neither proper nor legal. Hence he pleaded that the Tribunal must hold that TBRE was obtained by misrepresentation and suppression of facts and increase the redemption fine and impose suitable penalty on the Respondent. 4. Shri Gagrat, the ld advocate on behalf of the Respondent, produced a paper book containing the relevant documents connected with the import and stressed the following points : (i) The Respondent is a Non Resident Indian, who has been sent on assignment as Managing Director of Cox & Kings in India. Cox & Kings are reputed travel agents, having a worldwide net work. They were planning to produce a documentary to project India's tourism potential abroad. For this purpose, they needed these equipments. They had also obtained CCP and were also to get the certificate required for clearance of these equipments in terms of Customs Exemption Notification No. 231/77, dated 1-11-1977. They had also obtained a certificate from the Department of Tourism dated 7-2-1991 in this regard recommending the benefit of Notn. No. 231/77. Hence, in this background, if the whole position is seen, there had been no attempt on the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence, first we looked into the legal provisions of Tourist Baggage Rules as to whether in this case (notwithstanding the existence of CCP), the Respondent could have bona fide claimed the benefit of Rule 3 of the said Rules at the time of import of these equipments as a passenger. 5.2 No issue is raised before us regarding the applicability of Rule 2 to the Respondent. It is claimed by the Respondent's counsel that he normally resides abroad (though of Indian origin) and has come as a Managing Director of Cox & Kings. The equipments were brought, in the capacity as Managing Director for use in the studio of Cox & Kings. According to him, Rule 3(2) of the Tourist Baggage Rules, would entitle him to bring in cine equipment free of duty on an undertaking to re-export within six months. The department alleges that it is obtained by suppressing the existence of CCP and by wilful misrepresentation. 5.3 Hence, we looked into Rule 3 of the said Rules, which sets out the provision for exemption from duty. Though under sub-rule (1), the item imported could not be fitted in, because they cannot be construed to be for the personal use of the Respondent, sub-rule (2) covers professi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim duty free entry after working out the certificate of eligibility for claiming exemption under Notification No. 231/77, for which they are found to have taken steps, as is evident from the certificate of the Dy. Director General in the Department of Tourism of the Government of India. We are not going into the question as to whether they would be eligible for exemption on the basis of this certificate or something more is required, since this is not the document considered in the adjudication. But it goes to indicate that they were pursuing another course of action legally permissible. Hence, there is no overt attempt either to evade duty or to circumvent any prohibition. There is nothing wrong in the action of the Respondent when the Tourist Baggage Rules permit duty free import of such equipments on an undertaking of re-export, to avail of the same, notwithstanding the other efforts of his company to procure a CCP and duty exemption certificate. 5.6 We are also unable to accept that cine equipment is of a nature, which can be used as a personal equipment. Even if it is to be used by a professional, it has to be used in a TV or a cine studio in conjunction with other equi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
