Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Customs, Tiruchirapalli Versus Shri M, Kudubdeen AND Vice-Versa.

2016 (7) TMI 420 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Import of goods - passing through green channel without making declaration of baggage - he was having some electronic goods, liquor bottles and one Samsung TV. - passenger had brought commercial quantity of goods with intention to be sold in India for monetary consideration. Being a carrier of the goods it attracts the provisions of Section 2(39) of the Customs Act, 1962 and made the goods liable for confiscation under Section Ill(i), (l) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and render the passenger .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nder the Act, ibid which makes him ineligible for grant of baggage allowance as the impugned goods cannot be treated as bonafide baggage. Hence, Government opines that granting the benefit of free allowance by Appellate Authority is not proper and correct. - As regards the valuation issue the applicant has relied upon value of electronic goods of different make and model: Government notes that in absence of any documentary evidence produced by the applicant relevant for the television set su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

against the Order-in-Appeal No. C.CUS/58/2013 dated 16.05.2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Trichy with respect to Order-in-Original No.89/2013 dated 19.03.2012 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Trichy as detailed below: S.NO. R.A.No. R.A.Filed by Order-in-Appeal No. /date Order-in-Original No. /date 1. 380/68/B/15 Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Airport) Tiruchirapalli C.CUS/58/2013 Dated 16.05.2013 89/2013 dated 19.03.2013 2. 373/105/13-RA Mr. M. Kudubde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

TV. On verification of his Customs card it was found that the passenger had not declared the value of dutiable goods and intentionally left blank the value column. On a reasonable belief that the passenger might be carrying goods in commercial quantity his baggage was subjected to detailed examination. On examination of his baggage it was found that passenger had brought with him two Pioneer car decks valued at ₹ 8,000/- one Sony home theatre valued at ₹ 8,000/- one Samsung 55" .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n mind of permissible deductions from the market price. The profile of the passenger was checked through his passport and it was found that the passenger was a frequent visitor and used to carry commercial quantities of goods. It was also found from the records of the Customs that the passenger is a habitual offender and has MIO cases booked against him in the past. In the instant case also passenger had brought commercial quantity of goods with intention to be sold in India for monetary conside .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 with the option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 51,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 along with Customs duty as applicable and also imposed a penalty of ₹ 15,000/- under Section 112 of the Act, ibid and denied the free allowance. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, passenger filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his Order dated 16.052013 set aside the lower adjudicating authority order d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing grounds: 4.1 Grounds for Revision tendered by the Applicant 4.1.1 That the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is contrary to law. 4.1.2 That the Appellate Authority has concluded that the applicant is eligible for full free allowance on the only, that the goods brought by the applicant are not the prohibited/restricted goods. After arriving at the above conclusion, the Commissioner (Appeals) has ordered to release the said goods on payment of fine and penalty which is contrary to law. The a .....

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 Department is based on the prevailing market prices. The applicant plea is also the same. It is an accepted norm that assessment cannot be done on the basis of prevailing market price. The market price includes the duty element. This has to be deducted from the market price. Further, the market price includes profit margin, which also has to be deducted. The normal practice is around 40% deduction from the market price for arriving at the assessable value, which is done in all international .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

evaluation of the impugned goods should be done after granting abatement of 40% on the market price to arrive at assessable value for purpose of levying duty. Applicant prays that the Hon'ble Revisionary Authority may order favorably the relief claimed and thus render justice. 4.2 Grounds for Revision tendered by the Department. 4.2.1 That the passenger Shri M. Kudubdeen, has made at least two other trips prior to the present trip. The adjudicating authority, Assistant Commissioner of Custom .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed 22.02.2011, the passenger, being a trader, cannot be equated with a genuine passenger for grant of free allowance. In the circumstances, it is not proper on the part of the Appellate authority to allow full free allowance on the goods brought by the offender. 4.2.2 That further, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not at all discussed about the fact that the passenger is repeat offender, even though the fact has been brought out in the Order-in-Original. 4.2.3 That as the Passenger is a frequent 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

er and a short visitor and the goods brought by the applicant cannot be considered as bonafide baggage in terms of Section 79 of the Customs Act, 1962 or pass such any other order as deem fit. 5. The applicant has also filed an application dated 27.09.2013 for condonation of delay of 37 days in filing the Revision Application on the following grounds: 5.1 That he is an Indian national and having passport and permanently residing at Tamil Nadu and he brought the electronics goods but the officers .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rder, he prefer the appeal before the Revisionary Authority. 6. Personal hearing scheduled in this case on 03.09.2015, 18.09.2015 & 13.10.2015 was attended by Shri Para Siva Murthy, Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Trichy on behalf of the department, who reiterated the grounds of Revision Application and on behalf of the applicant his counsel Shri S. Palani kumar vide his letter dated 07.09.2015 requested Revisionary Authority to pass the order on the basis of available records. 7.Government .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

delay on the ground that he was not aware as to where the appeal would lie. As the delay is within condonable limit, Government in exercise of powers vested in Section 129 DD (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 condones the delay and now proceeds to take up the Revision Applications for decision on merit. 9. Upon perusal of the case records, Government observes that main issue which forms the basis of these Revision Applications is the valuation of the impugned goods and granting of benefit of free al .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing the benefit of free allowance to passenger, which should not have been given to the passenger in view of the Board's Circular/instructions issued under F.No. 495/19/99-Cus VI dated 11.4.2000 and reiterated in Board's letter in F.No.520/67/2000-Cus. VI. It has been further pleaded by the Department that the passenger failed to produce any documentary evidence for the purchase value of the impugned goods, whatever documents produced by the applicant in support of his claim for the valu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to walk through green channel and was intercepted by Customs officer on his way. On being asked by the officer about contents of his baggage, he replied that it contains few electronic goods and Samsung slim TV of 55"(8-series). On verification of his Customs Declaration Card, the officer found that the passenger has not fulfilled the value column and left it blank. On suspicion detailed examination of his baggage was conducted and the goods commercial in nature as per details mentioned in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version