2015 (6) TMI 1112 - CGOVT - Customs

Unclaimed baggage - abandonment of goods at airport - assorted electronic goods - watches - Ivory/Cream coloured powder - prohibited goods - confiscation - valuation of assorted electronic goods - Held that - The Customs authorities have valued the goods on the basis of prevailing market rates and taking into consideration the type, brand, etc. and also based on information from the internet downloads (NIDB Data) after allowing the usual rebate - As no supporting document to substantiate the value of electronics goods has been produced, Government finds no infirmity in the method of valuation adopted by the Customs authorities. Quantum of redemption fine and penalty - Held that - redemption fine and penalty imposed are only 50% and 10% of the value of goods respectively. Keeping in view the gravity of offence and overall circumstances of the case, the same are reasonable and there is no ground for their further reduction. Re-export of impugned assorted electronic goods - Held that - applicant contravened the provisions of Section 77 of Customs Act, 1962. The goods brought by the applicant were prohibited (Beta Methazone Dipropionate powder) and in commercial quantity (assorted electronic goods), and hence do not constitute bona fide baggage in terms of Section 79 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with provision of Para 2.20 of EXIM Policy in force - Provision for re-export of baggage is available u/s 80 of the CA, 1962. However, as this will apply only in the case of declared bona fide baggage, the applicant is not eligible for re-export of impugned goods. Revision application rejected - decided against applicant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of Beta Methazone Dipropionate Powder.
2. Confiscation and valuation of assorted electronic goods.
3. Imposition of redemption fine and personal penalty.
4. Request for re-export of electronic goods.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation of Beta Methazone Dipropionate Powder:
The applicant arrived at Chennai Airport with electronic goods and Beta Methazone Dipropionate Powder. The powder was found to be a prohibited item under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and was imported without proper license. The applicant did not declare the powder, which was confiscated absolutely under Section 111(d), (l), and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The government upheld the confiscation, noting the lack of an import license and proper declaration, deeming the applicant guilty of smuggling.

2. Confiscation and Valuation of Assorted Electronic Goods:
The applicant failed to declare the electronic goods, which were in trade quantity, thus not constituting bona fide baggage. Initially valued at Rs. 24,20,100, the value was enhanced to Rs. 43,26,400 based on market rates and internet data. The applicant contested the valuation, but the government found the method correct, citing the Apex Court's approval of using NIDB data for assessment. The goods were confiscated under Section 111(d), (l), and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option for redemption on payment of a fine.

3. Imposition of Redemption Fine and Personal Penalty:
The original adjudicating authority imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 21,63,000 and a personal penalty of Rs. 4,47,000 under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant sought a reduction, but the government found the penalties reasonable, given the gravity of the offense. The fines constituted 50% and 10% of the value of goods, respectively, and were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. Request for Re-export of Electronic Goods:
The applicant requested permission to re-export the electronic goods. However, the government noted that the goods were initially abandoned and not declared, thus contravening Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the goods were in commercial quantity and included prohibited items, they did not qualify as bona fide baggage under Section 79. The government cited similar cases where re-export was denied and upheld the decision, deeming the request illegal and improper.

Conclusion:
The government upheld the Order-in-Appeal, finding no merit in the applicant's claims. The confiscation of Beta Methazone Dipropionate Powder and electronic goods, the valuation method, and the imposed fines and penalties were deemed just and valid. The request for re-export was denied based on legal provisions and precedents. The revision application was thus rejected.