9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Mis-declaration of goods with intent to evade duty. 2. Time limit for filing declaration under Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Application of ITC restrictions to imported goods as baggage. 4. Confiscation of goods in trade quantity without license. 5. Valuation of seized goods for customs duty. Analysis: 1. The case involved the recovery of dutiable goods from unattended baggage at the airport, leading to allegations of mis-declaration with intent to evade duty. The appellant argued that the goods were not declared upon arrival, but a declaration was made later when called by customs officers post-seizure. Reference was made to the absence of a time limit for filing declarations under Section 77 of the Customs Act, citing relevant case law. However, the tribunal found that the declaration should have been made at the time of arrival, especially since the passenger opted for the green channel, indicating no dutiable goods. The appellant's plea of intending to clear the goods on payment of duty after leaving them unattended was not accepted. 2. The issue of time limits for filing declarations under Section 77 was raised, emphasizing the need for passengers to declare goods upon arrival. The tribunal differentiated between accompanied and unaccompanied baggage, stating that sufficient time for declaration is crucial for unaccompanied baggage. In this case, as the goods were not unaccompanied, the declaration should have been immediate. The appellant's argument of financial constraints preventing immediate clearance was not considered a valid reason for delayed declaration. 3. The application of ITC restrictions to imported goods as baggage was contested, with the appellant claiming that such restrictions do not apply to goods imported in trade quantities. However, the tribunal upheld that goods in trade quantity, like the confiscated items, require an import license and are not covered under the baggage rules' protection. The appellant's plea for clearance on payment of duty by waiving penalty was rejected, emphasizing the restricted nature of the imported goods. 4. The issue of confiscation of goods in trade quantity without a license was addressed, confirming that the confiscated goods required an import license due to their nature and quantity. The tribunal highlighted that protection under baggage rules is limited to bona fide baggage within permissible limits, not encompassing goods like those seized. Despite the appellant's plea for clearance by paying a redemption fine and duty, the tribunal upheld the confiscation and imposed penalties. 5. Valuation of the seized goods for customs duty was also discussed, with the appellant disputing the valuation based on the department's subsequent sale price. The tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the sale occurred after a significant period, potentially affecting the value due to technological advancements. The tribunal found no basis to dispute the CIF value determined by the Commissioner, upholding the confiscation and penalties but reducing the redemption fine and penalty in consideration of the circumstances. In a separate note, the second appeal by another individual was dismissed due to non-appearance, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal.
|
