Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Air Cargo) , Chennai Versus Shri Sadiq Bin Samsudeen

2016 (7) TMI 419 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Import of Sony Camera valued at ₹ 1,00,000 /- for someone in a baggage - passenger was intercepted at the green channel - Absolute confiscation - Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai allowed redemption of the impugned goods on payment of redemption file of ₹ 10,000/- and reduced the penalty to ₹ 5,000/- Revenue filed this revision application - Held that:- it is an admitted fact by the respondent that he had carried the impugned item for someone else and there is nothing on record t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e present case as the passenger is not the owner of the goods and neither to whom the camera was meant to be handed over have claimed the impugned goods. Therefore, the camera cannot be allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine. - goods imported by the passenger as a carrier are liable for absolute confiscation. - Government further finds that in view of the facts and circumstance of the case penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act ibid has been rightly imposed on the respondent. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rgo), Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) against the Order-in-Appeal No. C. Cus No. 906/2013dated 28.06.2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs, (Appeals) Chennai, with respect to Order-in-Original No. 551/Batch B dated 06.05.2013 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Chennai. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Shri Sadiq Bin Samsudeen (hereinafter referred to as Respondent) a Malaysian national arrived at the Chennai Airport on 06.05.2013. The passenger was inte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Aggrieved by the said order the respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai, who vide Order-in-Appeal no.C. Cus No. 906/2013 dated 28.06.2013 allowed redemption of the impugned goods on payment of redemption file of ₹ 10,000/- and reduced the penalty to ₹ 5,000/-. 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the adjudication authority at Chennai Airport in several other orders has ordered absolute confiscation in carrier cases and the said orders were upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). That finally the absolute confiscation was also upheld by Revisionary Authority pertaining to Chennai cases has upheld the absolute confiscation of goods brought by carrier passenger. 4.3. That the impugned Order-in-Appeal if implemented would jeopardize revenue interests irreparably since the passenger is a foreign n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vision application filed is not maintainable as the person who has filed the said application has not been authorized by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Air cargo) to file the said application in terms of Section 129 DD (IA) of the Customs Act, 1962. That the authority who has filed the present application has used the powers solely vested with the Commissioner of Customs, which ought not to be permitted to be sustained by the Revisionary Authority without prejudice. 5.2. That there i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ties to ascertain whether any duty was payable for the import of the said camera that he was asked by the Customs authorities, whether the camera belonged to the respondent he stated that he had brought the said camera to gift it to his friend in India. 5.4. That the customs authorities immediately made an issue as if the respondent had admitted that the camera did not belong to him and that he was carrying the camera for someone else. That the respondent had urged before the adjudicating author .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e facts of the present case and in all those cases the item under import was gold, which was either concealed or not declared before the customs authorities at the time of import. 5.7. That under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 there is no discretion vested with either the adjudicating authority or with the appellate authority to refuse permission to redeem goods on payment of a redemption fine when the goods are not 'prohibited' for their import and admittedly one unit Sony Camera .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 8. On perusal of records, Government observes that Shri Sadiq Bin Samsudeen, a Malaysian national arrived at the Chennai Airport on 06.05.2013. The passenger was intercepted at the green channel and when questioned he confessed to have carried one Sony Camera DEC-VX2200E valued at ₹ 1,00,000 /- for someone. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Airport) vide Order-in-Original No. 551/Batch B dated 06.05.2013 ordered for absolute co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

7; 10,000/- and reduced the penalty to ₹ 5,000/-. Now Department has filed this revision application under Section 129 DD of Customs Act, 1962 before Central Government on the grounds mentioned at para 4. 9. Government observes that the main contention of the Department is the fact that respondent is a carrier and brought the goods for someone else and this fact has been ignored by the Commissioner(appeals) who has allowed the unintended benefit to redeem the goods on payment of redemption .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

act by the respondent that he had carried the impugned item for someone else and there is nothing on record to show that any invoice was produced before the original authority or any claim made that the item was for gifting purpose. 12. There is nothing on record to show that the said submission has been made under any pressure or duress. In fact it is undeniably a voluntary statement made by the respondent during the course of personal hearing granted in the interest of natural justice clearly .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he duty liability of the impugned goods and it is to be given as gift to his friend in India. Any contrary claim regarding ownership of the impugned goods made before the Commissioner (Appeals) and in counter reply to the Revision Application is clearly an afterthought. 13. Government opines that any oral submission made before the adjudicating authority will be a material piece of evidence, in view of the specific admission made by the respondent before adjudicating authority. Government is inc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

such articles does not exceed such limits as may be specified in the rules. In this case, the respondent walked through the green channel without declaring the goods he possessed much in excess of the prescribed baggage allowance which clearly shows that he wished to evade duty involved on the impugned goods brought by him for someone else. The goods are clearly not bonafide baggage and rightly held as liable for confiscation. 15. In the present case as the passenger is not the owner of the good .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mport or export of goods under the Customs Act, 1962 or any other law for the time being in force the goods would be considered to be prohibited goods and this prohibition would also operate on such goods the export or import of which is subject to certain prescribed conditions if the conditions are not fulfilled. Further in the case of Samyanathan Murugesan Vs Commissioner reported in 2010(254) ELT A15 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the passenger did not fulfill the elig .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version