TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 - Shri D.P. Singh, Joint Secretary Shri N.J. Heera, Advocate, for the Assessee. None, for the Department. ORDER These revision applicatons are filed by applicants C/o Shri A.M. Sachwani, Advocate, Nulwala Building, Ground Floor, 41, Mint Road, Opp. GPO Fort, Mumbai against the Orders-in-Appeal Nos. passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai Zone-III, Mumbai with respect to order-in-original Nos. passed by Deputy Commissioner of Customs, CSI Airport, Mumbai as detailed below :- S. No. RA No./Name of Applicant O-I-A No./Date O-I-O No./Date Description/ Value of goods RF/PP as per O-I-O (Rs.) RF/PP as per O-I-A (Rs.) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 1. 371/66/B/13 Sushil Sham Chanchlani 75/Mum-III/13, dated 14-2-13 Air Cus/49/M-III/960/11, dated 25-10-11 Electronic goods Whisky ₹ 66,000 14000 10000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Customs Act, 1962 in each case. One Mac Book Pro Laptop was allowed free of duty in each case. 3. Being aggrieved by the said orders-in-original, applicants filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) who after consideration of all the submissions, rejected the appeals. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders-in-appeal, the applicants have filed these revision applications under Section 129DD of Customs Act, 1962 before Central Government on the following common grounds : 4.1 The applicant arrived on 25-10-2011 at Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai from Singapore by Flight No. SQ-424. The applicant on his arrival at the above Airport reported at its Red Channel and truly declared the goods valued at ₹ 1,04,300/- brought in by him, under Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant submits that in spite of true declaration, the officer made out a case of ITC and the case was put up for adjudication before the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, CSI Airport, Mumbai. 4.2 The Deputy Commissioner of Customs allowed the goods i.e. Laptop valued at ₹ 38,300/- and ordered the confiscation of other goods valued at ₹ 66,000/- under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 received on 22-2-2013. The revision applications were required to be filed within three months of receipt of the impugned order-in-appeal i.e. by 22-5-2013. As such these revision applications are filed after a delay of 2 months 10 days. The application for condonation of said delay are filed on the grounds of personal problem and domestic difficulties and for the reasons beyond their control. Applicants have cited the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji reported in [(1987) 2 SCC 107 = 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.)] wherein it was held that a liberal approach shall be followed in condoning the delay because ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. As per provisions of Section 129DD(2) first proviso, the delay up to 3 months can be condoned. Government therefore by following the principles laid down in the above said judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court condone the said delay in filing these revision applications and takes up said applications for decision on merits of the case. 9. Applicants have pleaded that the items brought by them are for personal use and not in commercial quantit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rified that portion of baggage which is not in commercial quantity would be eligible to free baggage allowance. 10. In view of above position, Government observes that free baggage allowance is admissible to the applicants. Applicants are entitled for duty free clearance of 2 litres of whisky as per baggage rules. So, the confiscation of one LCD TV and two litre whisky is set aside and same may be allowed to be cleared in free baggage allowance after charging duty on value of goods which is in excess of free baggage allowance of ₹ 25,000/- . The remaining goods i.e. one TV, one litre whisky and 2 Sony FM/AM clock Radio totally valuing ₹ 32,666/- being non-bona fide baggage are liable to confiscation. As such the confiscation of goods valuing ₹ 32,666/- is upheld. The redemption fine and penalty is therefore modified keeping in view the value of confiscated goods, as detailed below : S. No. RA No./Name of Applicant O-I-A No./Date O-I-O No./Date Redemption Fine modified to (Rs.) Penalty modified to (Rs.) (1) (2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
