9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Flight No.CX-751. He was intercepted by the Customs Officers while walking through the Green Channel along with his baggage and diverted to Red Channel Counter. On detailed examination of his baggage consisting of two suitcases, one wooden box and one carton, the goods as per table below were recovered in the presence of the passenger. Sr. No. Description Qty Value(Rs.) 1 SamsungLED40" 6series 01 45,000/- 2 Silver crafted Wooden chair 01 (3515 grams) 1,59,757/- 3 Ladies bag TT 01 2500/- 4 Sandals 10 pairs 10000/- 5 Silver coin 02(50 grams each) 5000/- 6 Sun glasses(Used) Doir 02 1000/- 7 Lahanga Chuni 01 set 2,50,000/- TOTAL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods were taken by the passenger to Bangkok on departure. Further it was found that the goods were found in possession of the passenger Shri Manoj Kumar Jain but the invoices submitted by him indicating local purchases are in the name of Mr. Rajinder Lila, BN-73, Shalimar Bagh, West New Delhi in respect of silver crafted wooden chowki and in the name of Ms. Neeta Lila in respect of Cartier watch. The Langha invoice did not have the name of the customer. 2.3 As the passenger had failed to produce any documents/evidence in support of his claim that these goods were legally carried by him and constitute his bonafide baggage, at the time of departure to abroad the same were confiscated under the provisions of Section 111, of the Act, ibid. fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .5 lakhs.The Adjudicating Authority passed the following order: (i) I order for confiscation of the impugned goods valued at Rs. 5,12, 757/- under Section 111 (1) (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I give an option to the Pax to redeem the said goods on payment of redemption Fine of Rs. 10,000 /- (Rupees Ten thousands only) under the provisions of Section 125 of the Custom Act, 1962; (ii) Order for payment of applicable rate of customs duty at the Baggage Rate of Duty on the assessable value of goods for I deny the free allowance to the PAX in terms of Baggage Rules, 1998. (iii) I also impose a Penalty of Rs. 5, 000/-(Rupees Five Thousands only) on the Pax under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hnson Watch Company Private Ltd. from UAE vide import invoice no. 0041465 dated 22.01.2012 and cleared vide bill of entry no. 9257467 / 08.02.2013. From the above said facts of the case it is clearly established without any doubt that the goods re imported by the petitioner are of Indian goods exported to Thailand and re-imported to India. Therefore there is no justification for charging the customs duty on the goods exported from India. Particularly in the case of Cartier watch the serial number of the watch is clearly mentioned on the import invoice produce by the petitioner. 4.2 It was also the observation of the Addl.Commissioner of Customs that the identity of the goods was to be established. The documentary evidence produced by the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned goods which were detained for appraisement and clearance as per rules. As the passenger had contravened the provisions of Section 77 and 79 of Customs Act, 1962 read with the Baggage Rules, 1998 and para 2.1 and 2.20 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14, the goods were held to be liable for confiscation under Section 111(1) and (m) of the Act and the passenger liable for penal action under Section 112. The Adjudicating Authority ordered for the confiscation of the impugned goods valued at Rs. 5,12,757/- giving the option to redeem the said goods on payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 125, applicable rate of Customs duty at the baggage rate of duty and denying duty free allowance, penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the passenger was i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e invoices which were not in his name thus he failed to prove the identity of the impugned goods as per Section 20 of the Act, ibid and it also proved that the goods carried by the passenger did not constitute his bonafide baggage under the provisions of Section 79 of the Customs Act, 1962, as the goods did not belong to him and he carried the same on others' behalf. The case laws relied upon by the applicant are not found to be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. Government also notes that it has been conclusively established that the applicant has clearly contravened the provisions of Section 77, 79 & 20 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Baggage Rules, 1998 and the Foreign Trade Policy Rules on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
