TMI Blog1984 (8) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the name of Smt. Bina wife of the appellant Shri M.T. Punjabi. According to the appellant, he was looking after the affairs of the shop as Manager. The seized goods consisted of car cassettes, cassette tapes, speakers, stereo and motor parts. As the premises was not notified as a place of storage for notified goods and as the goods were displayed for sale and as some of the goods were imported as baggage of passengers and were cleared under the exemption admissible under the ITC regulations, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant and his wife as to why the seized goods should not be confiscated and why personal penalty should not be imposed on them. In her reply, Smt. Bina stated among other things that she was the owner of the shop but her husband was doing all the business and he would give all the explanation. The appellant replied stating that the non-notified goods worth ₹ 15,815/- were regularly imported into the country and therefore, they are not liable for confiscation. The appellant explained that he purchased non-notified goods valued at ₹ 12,980/- in the open market and he produced bills for the goods valued at ₹ 8374/- and for the goods va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exempted from payment of duty. 4. Out of the goods of the value of ₹ 11,063/- goods valued at ₹ 9,873/- were covered by Customs receipts and they were cleared on payment of duty and as such they cannot be absolutely confiscated. Further, the goods valued at ₹ 918/- were also covered by Customs receipts and they were cleared on payment of fine and duty and as such they cannot be confiscated. The confiscation, if at all could have been ordered only in respect of the goods valued at ₹ 850/- which were not covered by any bills. It was further submitted by Shri Raichandani that there were technical breach committed by the appellant in not notifying the place of storage and such a breach did not call for absolute confiscation and imposing of personal penalty of ₹ 10,000/-. He, therefore, prayed that the goods ordered to be confiscated absolutely may be released on payment of fine and the personal penalty may be set aside. 5. Shri Krishan Kumar for the Respondent Collector, however, contended that the order passed by the learned Additional Collector and confirmed by the Board is legal and does not call for any interference. He urged that admittedly the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Additional Collector did not record a definite finding as to whether the goods became liable for confiscation because the same was before the expiry of the period of 5 years or on account of the value of the goods having not depreciated to 50%. Before ordering absolute confiscation, the adjudicating authority was required to record a clear finding as to the conditions, violated. The reasons such as that panchnama does not indicate that the goods are old that the baggage receipts are recently dated are wholly insufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the value of the goods did not depreciate to 50% at the time of sale or purchase. Further, the confiscation was ordered for non-compliance of the condition of import. But then, the law did not permit absolute confiscation when the violation was only non-compliance of the conditions of import. Non-compliance was a post-import act or an act which took place subsequent to the import. The import was valid. It was not prohibited. Section 125 of the Customs Act requires an adjudicating authority to grant option to the owner of the goods to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the officers think fit in the case of goods the impor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons given by the Additional Collector for ordering absolute confiscation of the notified goods read : Goods valued at ₹ 11,063/- (cif) under seizure are notified items. It has been admitted by M/s. Sainath Motors that the goods were acquired for sale by M/s. Sainath Motors. A claim was made at the time of personal hearing that M/s. Sainath Motors were aware of the fact that the goods were notified and that they were exploring the methodology by which they could get themselves notified. It was also claimed that the goods were recently acquired and that they have had no time to get themselves notified. The defence is weak at its best and I have no hesitation to reject this Contention. I hold that the notified goods under seizure are liable to confiscation under Section 111 (p) of the Act. Out of these goods, goods valued at ₹ 9,873/- are imported on payment of duty only. These goods are, therefore, liable to confiscation under Section 111 (o) also. In the case of goods valued at ₹ 850/- no receipts have been tendered. These goods are, therefore, liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) also. 10. Now, so far as the goods valued at ₹ 850/- are concer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
