2016 (7) TMI 147 - CGOVT - Customs

Import of electronic goods in a baggage - bonafide baggage or not - whether re-import of goods earlier taken away - crossing through green channel - He was intercepted by the Customs Officers while walking through the Green Channel along with his baggage and diverted to Red Channel Counter. - Held that - Government observes that there is no dispute about the fact that goods were undeclared as are not bonafide baggage and that the passenger opted for the green channel.The main contention of the passenger is that some of the goods (watch, chowki and lahanga) were carried by the passenger at the time of departure and were brought back to India and there is no justification for charging duty on goods exported from India. It is therefore, pleaded that while these items may not be charged to duty, the television may be allowed under duty free allowance and on rest of the goods duty be charged. In the instant case, the passenger produced local purchase invoices which were not in his name thus he failed to prove the identity of the impugned goods as per Section 20 of the Act, ibid and it also proved that the goods carried by the passenger did not constitute his bonafide baggage under the provisions of Section 79 of the Customs Act, 1962, as the goods did not belong to him and he carried the same on others behalf. The passenger has rightly been denied the free baggage allowance by both the lower authorities. - Decided against the applicant.

Summary

Issues:
- Green channel violation and confiscation of goods
- Request for release of impugned goods on applicable rate of duty
- Failure to produce evidence of legally carried goods
- Adjudication of penalty, duty, and fine
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal modification
- Revision application before Central Government

Green channel violation and confiscation of goods:
The passenger arrived from Bangkok and attempted to walk through the Green Channel without declaring the goods. Customs officers intercepted him and found undeclared goods in his possession. The goods were detained for appraisement and adjudication due to the contravention of non-declaration under the Customs Act.

Request for release of impugned goods on applicable rate of duty:
The passenger's authorized representative requested the release of impugned goods on applicable duty rates, fine, and penalty. Invoices were submitted to support the claim that certain items were taken from India for personal use, such as in a marriage ceremony.

Failure to produce evidence of legally carried goods:
The passenger failed to provide evidence that the goods were legally carried by him and constituted his bonafide baggage. Invoices submitted were in different names, raising doubts about the ownership and origin of the goods.

Adjudication of penalty, duty, and fine:
After a personal hearing, the adjudicating authority ordered for the confiscation of impugned goods but allowed redemption on payment of a fine. Customs duty, penalty, and redemption fine were imposed, which the appellant paid for clearance of the goods.

Appeal against Order-in-Appeal modification:
The applicant appealed against the Order-in-Appeal, which modified the original order by extending a rebate on the market value of impugned goods. The appeal was filed before the Central Government under Section 129 DD of the Customs Act, 1962.

Revision application before Central Government:
The Central Government reviewed the case records, submissions, and previous orders. It upheld the decision of the Adjudicating Authority and the Order-in-Appeal, denying the passenger free baggage allowance and confirming the duty payable on the impugned goods. The Revision Application was rejected as devoid of merit.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, addressing the Green channel violation, request for release of goods, failure to produce evidence, adjudication of penalty and duty, appeal against modification, and the final decision of the Central Government in the revision application.