2016 (7) TMI 466 - CGOVT - Customs

Clandestine import of goods in the baggage - import of Sony Camera for someone else - passenger was intercepted at the green channel - absolute confiscation and levy of penalty - Held that - In the present case as the passenger has brought the goods for someone else and acted as a carrier. Therefore, the impugned goods cannot be allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine. Government places reliance on the following decisions of the higher courts the ratio of which is squarely applicable to the instant case. In view of the facts and circumstance of the case penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act ibid has been rightly imposed on the respondent. The quantum of penalty as imposed by the original authority is reasonable and commensurate with the nature of the offence to the extent that neither the goods were declared and were in excess of the admissible baggage allowance but were also meant for someone else. - Decided in favor of revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the Revision Application filed by the Department.
2. Confiscation and penalties imposed on the respondent.
3. Redemption of confiscated goods.
4. Applicability of previous judgments and legal precedents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Revision Application:
The respondent argued that the revision application was not maintainable as it was not authorized by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Air Cargo) as required under Section 129 DD (IA) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Government found that the Assistant Commissioner was duly authorized to file the Revision Application on behalf of the Commissioner of Customs. Therefore, the objection regarding the maintainability of the application was dismissed.

2. Confiscation and Penalties Imposed:
The respondent, a foreign national, was intercepted at Chennai Airport and confessed to carrying a Sony Camera valued at ?1,00,000 for someone else. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods absolutely under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposed a penalty of ?10,000 under Section 112(a). The Commissioner (Appeals) later allowed redemption of the goods on payment of a fine and reduced the penalty to ?5,000. The Department contended that the respondent acted as a carrier and should not benefit from redemption. The Government agreed, citing that the goods were not bona fide baggage and were meant for someone else, thus upholding the absolute confiscation and the original penalty.

3. Redemption of Confiscated Goods:
The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the respondent to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of a fine, which the Department contested. The Government observed that the respondent admitted to carrying the goods for someone else, making them ineligible for redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Government emphasized that the goods were not declared and exceeded the baggage allowance, thus supporting absolute confiscation.

4. Applicability of Previous Judgments and Legal Precedents:
The Department cited several judgments where absolute confiscation was upheld in similar cases involving carriers. These included decisions by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and the Supreme Court, which established that goods brought by carriers are considered prohibited and liable for absolute confiscation. The Government relied on these precedents, concluding that the respondent, being a carrier, was not entitled to redeem the goods.

Conclusion:
The Government set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and restored the Order-in-Original, which included absolute confiscation of the goods and a penalty of ?10,000. The revision application by the Department succeeded, emphasizing that the respondent's actions warranted strict enforcement of customs regulations to protect revenue interests.

← Previous Next →