TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 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 passenger has rightly been denied the free baggage allowance by both the lower authorities. - Decided against the applicant. - F.No.375/351B/13-RA-CUS - ORDER NO. 19/2016-CUS - Dated:- 26-2-2016 - SMT. RIMJHIM PRASAD, JOINT SECRETARY ORDER: This revision application is filed by Shri Manoj Kumar Jain against the Order-in Appeal No. CC(A)/Cus/663/2013 dated 16.12.2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs, (Appeals), NCH, New Delhi, with respect to Order-in-Original No. 35/2013 dated 14.05.2013 passed by Additional Commissioner of Customs, I.G.I., Airport, New Delhi. 2. Briefly stating, the facts of the case are that the pax holder of Indian Passport NO.K-9541540 arrived from Bangkok on 07.05.2013 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in support of his contention that these 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. for the contravention of non-declaration of impugned goods under Section 77 79 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 20 of the Act, ibid which provides that if the goods are re-imported into India after exportation there from, such goods shall be liable to duty subject to all the conditions and restrictions, if any, to which the goods of the like kind and value are liable or on importation thereof. 2.4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order-in-Original was upheld by Appellate Authority except above modification. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application under Section 129 DD of Customs Act, 1962 before Central Government on the following grounds: 4.1 It is on record that the petitioner has produced the VAT paid invoice no. 00060 dated 25.04.2013 issued by M/S Geol Jewellers 150 Kapil Vihar Pitampura Delhi - 34 showing that the petitioner purchased silver chowki crafted in wood and are packed in wooden box in India and is of Indian origin, He has also produced the purchase invoice of Lehnga for ₹ 75,210 / - from M/s Jindal Designs Jindal House 139, Main Maliwara, Nai Sarak, Chandini Chowk, Delhi vide Invoice No. JD - 1879 / 13- 14 dated 02.05.2013. He purchased Cartier watch (Model No.W69010Z4) Sr No. 3009 - 528271 invoice no. 522821 dated 02.05.2013 Connaught Place New Delhi - 1. It is also on record that the same watch was imported by M/S Johnson 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 est ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (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 ₹ 5,12,757/- giving the option to redeem the said goods on payment of fine of ₹ 10,000/- under Section 125, applicable rate of Customs duty at the baggage rate of duty and denying duty free allowance, penalty of ₹ 5,000/- on the passenger was imposed under Section 112 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order, the applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned Order-In-Appeal partially allowed the appeal by allowing 40% abetment in the value. Now, the applicant has filed the Revision Application on grounds in para 4 above. 8. Government observes that there is no dispute about the fact that goods were undeclared as are not bonafide baggage and that the passenger opted for the green channel.The main contention of the passenger is that some of the goods (watch, chowki and lahanga) were carried by the passenger at the time of departure and were brought back to India and there is no justification for charging duty on goods exported from India. It is therefore, pleaded that while thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
