2016 (7) TMI 777 - CGOVT - Customs

Maintainability of revision application - Import of baggage without declaring the goods - passing through green channel - recovery of non bonafide baggage items such as 2000 pieces of memory cards and 426 pieces of assorted wrist watches - Held that - the case matter primarily pertains to the refund of sale proceeds where the goods were already disposed off under Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the adjustments that can be made there against. The applicant has challenged the adjustment of duty on goods which are not available for redemption under Section 125. The basic issue for decision is whether duty is chargeable on goods which have been disposed off under Section 150 ibid and are not available for redemption and not whether duty is chargeable on goods imported as- baggage. Hence, the instant case does not fall within the ambit and scope of provisions contained for Section 129DD read with proviso to Section 129 A(l) of the Customs Act, 1962 under which the instant revision application has been made. Government therefore finds that the Revision Application filed before Central Government in terms of Section 129DD of Customs Act 1962 is beyond jurisdiction. As such, this Revision Application is dismissed for being non-maintainable.

Issues involved:
1. Seizure and confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Disposal of confiscated goods and subsequent refund application.
3. Appeal against the refund order and jurisdiction of the Central Government.
4. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 in the context of the case.

Seizure and confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, 1962:
The case involved the interception and detailed examination of baggage, resulting in the recovery of non-bonafide items mis-declared by the applicant. The goods were seized under the belief that they constituted non-bonafide baggage, leading to their confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant admitted to being a carrier working for monetary gain, and a show cause notice was issued followed by an order for confiscation and imposition of penalties.

Disposal of confiscated goods and subsequent refund application:
After the confiscation, the applicant expressed willingness to redeem the goods but they were disposed of by the Department. Subsequently, a refund application was filed for the sale proceeds of the confiscated goods. The refund sanctioning authority approved a refund amount after deducting fines, penalties, and duties from the realized amount.

Appeal against the refund order and jurisdiction of the Central Government:
The applicant appealed the refund order before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was rejected. The applicant then filed a revision application before the Central Government, citing various grounds including the disposal of goods by the Department and the applicability of specific case laws. The Respondent Commissionerate argued against the appeal, stating that the duty and redemption fine were not paid, and the sale proceeds were returned as per statutory provisions.

Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 in the context of the case:
The Central Government analyzed the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 concerning revision applications and appeals. It was noted that the case primarily dealt with the refund of sale proceeds of disposed goods and the adjustment of duties. The Government concluded that the revision application was beyond jurisdiction as it did not fall within the scope of the relevant provisions. The application was dismissed, and the applicant was advised to file an appeal before the appropriate authority under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962.

The judgment addressed the issues of seizure, confiscation, disposal of goods, refund application, appeal, and jurisdiction under the Customs Act, 1962. It highlighted the process of interception, examination, and confiscation of non-bonafide items from the baggage of the applicant. The decision emphasized the legal framework governing such cases and the specific provisions relevant to revision applications and appeals. Ultimately, the Central Government dismissed the revision application, citing lack of jurisdiction and advising the applicant to pursue the matter through the appropriate legal channels.

← Previous Next →