9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Goods declared as baggages found to be of commercial nature. 2. Alleged conspiracy to misuse Transfer of Residence concession. 3. Confiscation under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Penalty imposition on certain individuals. 5. Validity of the adjudicator's findings. 6. Remand of the case for de novo consideration. Analysis: 1. The case involved imported goods declared as baggages but were discovered to be of commercial nature, leading to a show cause notice being issued. The Commissioner concluded that the goods were unclaimed and imported in violation of Baggage Rules, justifying confiscation under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. It was alleged that there was a conspiracy to misuse the Transfer of Residence concession by certain traders from Chennai who obtained passports of Singapore passengers to clear goods without payment of duty. The adjudicator found evidence of forged documents and unclaimed goods, supporting the confiscation. 3. The adjudicator imposed penalties on some individuals while appreciating the cooperation of others in uncovering the racket. Confiscation was justified under Sections 111(d), (e), (i), (l), (m), and (o) of the Customs Act, 1962, along with confiscation of packages and package materials under Sections 118 and 119. 4. The validity of the adjudicator's findings was questioned during the appeal. The appellate tribunal noted discrepancies in the findings, especially regarding the goods being unclaimed when passengers had attended the hearing. The tribunal remanded the case for de novo consideration, emphasizing the need for a fair assessment of the ownership claims and the items' import status. 5. The tribunal highlighted the importance of a valid order and fair proceedings, expressing concerns about tailored statements and inducements influencing the findings. It directed the adjudicator to re-examine the case, ensuring the appellants' presence and legal representation for a thorough reconsideration of the ownership claims and confiscation grounds. 6. Ultimately, the tribunal set aside the original order and allowed the appeals by remanding the case for further adjudication. The adjudicator was instructed to conduct de novo proceedings, providing the appellants with an opportunity to present their case effectively within a specified timeframe for resolution.
|
