9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to denial of Transfer of Residence (T.R.) benefit for V.C.R. under Transfer of Residence Rules. Detailed Analysis: The petitioner arrived in India after a stay abroad and brought household items, including a C.T.V. and a V.C.R. The Assistant Collector granted T.R. benefit for all items except the V.C.R., deeming it new and less than a year old. The petitioner appealed to the Collector of Customs (Appeals), arguing the V.C.R. model was available for three years, supported by a purchase voucher. The appeal was rejected, stating lack of evidence and reliance on the Baggage Officer's decision on the C.T.V. The petitioner then filed a revision application, reiterating the V.C.R.'s availability and genuineness of the purchase voucher. The Revisional Authority rejected the application, citing lack of evidence disproving the V.C.R.'s newness and recent launch. The petitioner challenged these orders in a writ petition, contesting the decisions made at the appellate and revisional levels. The respondents contended that the V.C.R. was found to be new upon examination, with no proof of prior use or possession by the petitioner for the required period. Both appellate and revisional authorities denied T.R. benefit for the V.C.R., emphasizing its newness and recent market launch, coupled with the petitioner's failure to provide substantial evidence. The High Court noted the absence of evidence supporting the authorities' conclusion on the V.C.R.'s recent launch, contradicting the lack of evidence for its availability three years back. The petitioner presented a purchase voucher from 1987, establishing possession for the requisite period under T.R. Rules. The Court emphasized that denial of T.R. benefit based solely on the item appearing new lacked valid reasons, especially when supported by a valid purchase voucher. Consequently, the Court set aside the previous orders, directing the release of the V.C.R. with T.R. concession to the petitioner.
|
