1983 (9) TMI 288 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Transfer of Residence (T.R.) benefit to personal household effects.
2. Ownership of goods in question.
3. Interpretation of invoices and certificates.
4. Application of Customs Act, 1962 and T.R. Rules.

Analysis:
The appeal concerned the denial of Transfer of Residence (T.R.) benefit to certain personal household effects brought by the Appellant upon arrival. The Assistant Collector initially denied the benefit based on ownership, stating that the goods were owned by the Appellant's father. Subsequently, a revision was sought by the Appellant and his father. The Additional Collector of Customs upheld the denial, citing that the goods were purchased for export and not for use in England, as per invoices and a certificate from the shipping agent. The Appellant argued that the goods met the criteria for T.R. benefit, emphasizing the acquisition date, absence of non-usage signs, and the goods being sent in advance through the Appellant. However, the Respondent contended that the goods were never in the Appellant's possession as they were with the shipping agent, justifying the denial of T.R. benefit.

The Tribunal carefully examined the case, noting the purchase date, delivery to the shipping agent, and absence of VAT due to export intention. Despite the potential for T.R. benefit based on acquisition and possession, the Tribunal found the circumstances akin to a previous ruling where goods were not deemed used due to delivery to a shipping agent. The certificate provided by the shipper was deemed unreliable due to timing and inconsistencies in statements. The Tribunal emphasized that the Appellant did not have the right to use the goods for the requisite period as they were not intended for use in England, as per the T.R. Rules. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the denial of T.R. benefit, stating that the Appellant could not claim such benefit, affirming the correctness of the adjudication order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the denial of Transfer of Residence benefit to the Appellant's personal household effects. The judgment highlighted the significance of ownership, usage criteria, and adherence to Customs Act provisions and Transfer of Residence Rules in determining eligibility for such benefits.