2001 (6) TMI 653 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Smuggling of goods through Customs, Confiscation of goods, Imposition of penalty, Evidence of declaration, Validity of invoice, Reduction in value determination, Reduction in penalty

In this case, the appellant appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad, which ordered the confiscation of 109 mobile telephones and other goods valued at Rs. 10,52,800 that the appellant attempted to smuggle through the Customs in Ahmedabad. The Commissioner found that the appellant was walking from the green channel without evidence of duty payment when intercepted. The appellant contended that there was no evidence to show he came through the green channel, but the panchanama clearly recorded his presence there. The appellant also failed to declare the telephones in the disembarkation form. The appellant argued that the value of the telephones should be Rs. 6.71 lakhs based on an invoice from Ilford Cellular, London, which lacked a number and signature but had a stamp with 'Approved' and was allegedly signed by S. Marshall, the firm's proprietor. Marshall's relationship with the appellant suggested bias, making the invoice unreliable. The appellant was unable to explain why, as an executive of the firm, he purchased the phones from it, and the invoice was not found with him in India. The order reducing the value of goods was deemed valid as the appellant's submissions were considered. The appellant claimed a reduction in penalty due to the telephones' depreciation, but the department argued for the penalty based on the premeditated smuggling attempt. The penalty was reduced from Rs. 6.5 lakhs to Rs. 5.5 lakhs, and the appeal was partly allowed.