9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (6) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cassette Recorder passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs in his order bearing No. S/36/Cus/82, dated 9-11-1982. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal stated briefly are as under :- Shri Pravinchandra Jain, the Second Respondent brought to India a coloured T.V. and a V.C.R. and got them cleared as baggage. The officers of the Customs on 23-8-1982 raided and searched the residential premises of the first respondent and seized the two items which were cleared as baggage by the second respondent. The officers of the Customs recorded the statement of the first respondent wherein it was stated that he purchased these two items on payment of ₹ 23,000/- and he also produced a sale voucher to evidence the sale. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor (Appeals), therefore, set aside the order of confiscation of the goods and he further ordered that a caution will meet the ends of justice and accordingly he set aside the personal penalty. 3. Feeling aggrieved by this Order of the Collector (Appeals), the Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad preferred this appeal. 4. Shri Krishan Kumar, the learned Departmental Representative urged that the documentary evidence and the statement of the first, respondent Om Prakash Jain established beyond doubt that there was a sale of T.V. and V.C.R. which were cleared as baggage in contravention of the conditions imposed under ITC order. Shri Krishan Kumar further urged that the T.V. set which was cleared as baggage could not have been sold for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as ₹ 18,000/-. Thus the value of the VCR had been depreciated by more than 50% and in the said circumstances it cannot be said that there had been any violation of the ITC condition. 7. Shri Shah further urged there was no dispute that the first respondent was the uncle of the second respondent. The second respondent brought the goods from London. He collected only the Customs duty of ₹ 18,000/-and air-fare of ₹ 5000/-. He did not collect the value of the two articles which he had given to his uncle. Thus there was no proof whatsoever that the second respondent had sold the items to the first respondent. The Collector (Appeals) according to Shri Shah was justified in coming to the conclusion that there was a gift in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seize the items. The seizure in the circumstances was not only bad but appears high handed. 9. Now coming to the merit of the case, it may be stated that there were two appeals before the Collector (Appeals). The Collector, Ahmedabad had filed only one appeal, apparently because there was one order by the Collector (Appeals) though by that order he disposed of two appeals. In law, the Collector, Ahmedabad, was required to prefer two appeals. However, this deficiency was condoned as Shri Shah had no objection to hear the appeal. 10. Another infirmity which has come to light in this appeal is the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 124 of the Customs Act. In his order the Assistant Collector has observed that the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals) was wholly justified in setting aside the order of confiscation and penalty imposed upon the first respondent, Shri Om Prakash Jain. 12. So far as the second respondent is concerned, the case of the department was that he sold the two items in violation of the I.T.C. regulations and that the T.V. was sold before 5 years and the V.C.R. was sold before its value got reduced to 50%. Now in the whole of the order of the Assistant Collector there was not even a whisper about what was the value of the V.C.R. at the time of clearance and what was its value when it was disposed of by the second respondent. In the absence of such an allegation there was no scope that the second respondent violated the condition as to this aspect. In so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
