TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tsubushi Lancer parked in Hotel Broadway, K.G. Road, Bangalore was containing contraband goods were liable for action under the Customs Act. On the basis of the information, the officers visited the Hotel on 10-6-2003 and identified the said car in the hotel premises. On verification from the hotel they found that one Mr. Sameer MP; Fathima Bhavan; Edapal, Mallalpuram had checked-in the room of the said hotel. The officers proceeded to the said room and found two persons who introduced themselves as Mr. Shafeeq and Mr. Sameer. They asked them to whom the car belonged, Shri Shafeeq claimed the car. He stated that he had left from Edapal in Mallapuram along with Shri Sameer and reached Bangalore in the early morning. The officers questioned S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the seized goods including the car. The seized goods were valued at Rs. 7.92 lakhs and they did not grant any redemption, while the car was granted redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. T. V. Mohammed was imposed with penalty of Rs. 50,000/- while M.P. Sameer was imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. Separate penalties was imposed on Anwer Shafeeq, Shanavas and Sajji, they have not filed their appeal. 2. The learned Counsel submits that the items were all non-notified goods and freely available in the open market. In the first instance itself they had clearly stated in their statements that these goods were not smuggled ones and were purchased in Burma Bazaar, Chennai. Therefore, they are not confiscable and they cannot be impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be seized and confiscated, the judgment of N.A. Khan (supra) clearly applies to the facts of the case. The finding recorded in para 5 is reproduced here below. 5. On a careful consideration of the submissions, we find from the facts of the case that the goods were seized in Bangalore by the Police. And the appellants had handed over the goods under seizure to the Customs Department for further investigation. In terms of the judgments relied by the Counsel which are noted supra, Section 123 of the Customs Act is inapplicable when the Police have seized the goods and handed over the same to the Customs Department as held in the case of Jitender Pawar v. CC, Rajkamal Departmental Stores; State of Maharashtra v. P.P. Jain. Therefore, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fiscation cannot be ordered in respect of non-notified items which have been purchased from the market and it cannot be held that they are smuggled ones. Therefore, we are of the view that in view of the large number of judgments cited on this very point, the appellants succeed in these appeals. The impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief. The appellants are entitled to receive the value of the goods as seized and noted in the Mahazar in terms of the judgments already cited and noted supra. Applying the ratio of the above noted judgment, the impugned order is set aside so far as these appeals are concerned and appeals allowed with consequential relief. In case the Department has already sold the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
