2017 (7) TMI 880 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of imported consignment - It was the case of the appellant before the lower authorities that he has returned back from Middle East permanently and hence brought back his household goods under Baggage Rules (transfer of residence) through container as an unaccompanied baggage - Held that - the appellant is not able to justify the presence of brand new Air Conditioners Refrigerators Lighting fixtures and Modular kitchen and in such huge quantity which is unacceptable that they are as used house hold goods - In the absence of any justification as to why such commercial quantity of brand new goods has been imported alongwith used house hold goods in the container the adjudicating authority as well as first appellant authority were correct in coming to the conclusion that the impugned goods are liable for confiscation and consequent penalty - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Confiscation of imported consignment under Baggage Rules, justification for presence of new goods, failure to file baggage declaration, goods found in commercial quantity, invoices issued in company's name, lack of proof for personal use, imposition of redemption fine and penalty.

Confiscation of Imported Consignment:
The appeal was against the confiscation of a consignment imported by the appellant, including new items like air conditioners, refrigerators, lighting fixtures, and a modular kitchen in addition to used household goods. The appellant claimed to have returned permanently from the Middle East and brought back household goods under Baggage Rules. However, the authorities found the new items in commercial quantity and detained/seized them. The lower authorities confiscated the goods with an option for redemption on payment of a fine and imposed penalties along with customs duty. The appellant cleared the goods by paying the duty, redemption fine, and penalty.

Justification for Presence of New Goods:
The appellant failed to justify the presence of brand new goods in such large quantities alongside used household items. The first appellate authority concluded that the goods were not bonafide baggage of the appellant. Invoices were issued in the company's name, not the appellant's, and the evidence indicated that the goods were not for personal use. The appellant's claim that the goods were purchased by the company on his behalf was deemed false, as the supporting documents were found to be an afterthought. The authorities were justified in confiscating the goods and imposing penalties under the Customs Act.

Failure to File Baggage Declaration:
The appellant failed to file a baggage declaration, and the goods were found in excess of the prescribed quantity under the rules. The invoices were not in the appellant's name, and the evidence presented was considered insufficient to prove that the goods were for personal use. The appellant's attempt to claim the goods as part of his baggage was rejected due to lack of concrete proof.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to confiscate the goods and impose penalties, as the appellant could not provide a valid justification for importing new items in commercial quantity under the guise of personal baggage. The lack of evidence supporting the goods' intended personal use led to the rejection of the appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to customs regulations and providing clear documentation to avoid penalties and confiscations in import cases.