9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Valuation of confiscated goods 2. Grant of free allowance 3. Confiscation of goods under Customs Act, 1962 4. Reduction in redemption fine and personal penalty Valuation of Confiscated Goods: The respondent, a frequent traveler, imported 40 walkmans and 70 cordless phone instruments after a six-day stay abroad. The goods were confiscated for not being bona fide baggage and in commercial quantity. The original authority reduced the value of one type of cordless telephone based on purchase documents, leading to a decrease in the total value of confiscated goods. The appellate authority extended free allowance and reduced the fine and penalty. The Revision Application challenged the relief granted, arguing that the respondent was a frequent visitor importing goods in trade quantity. Grant of Free Allowance: The respondent's consultant argued that there is no provision in the Baggage Rules preventing goods in multiple numbers from receiving free allowance. Citing a Tribunal decision, it was emphasized that declared goods cannot be confiscated. However, the Government noted that only bona fide household goods and personal effects are permitted as passengers' baggage under the EXIM Policy. The Government held that the imported goods did not qualify as bona fide baggage, requiring a proper license for importation. The grant of free allowance was deemed improper as the goods were not for personal use but for trade purposes. Confiscation of Goods under Customs Act, 1962: The Government clarified that goods not constituting bona fide baggage are liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to improper importation. It was highlighted that even if goods are declared, they can still be confiscated if they do not qualify as bona fide baggage. The Government differentiated between restricted and prohibited goods, stating that both are subject to confiscation under Section 111(d). Reduction in Redemption Fine and Personal Penalty: The Government acknowledged the reduction in the redemption fine due to reassessment of the goods' value but maintained that no leniency should be granted in reducing the personal penalty. The Revision Application was disposed of, upholding the reduction in the redemption fine but rejecting any leniency regarding the personal penalty. The judgment emphasized that goods imported for sale do not warrant leniency in penalty imposition. This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of valuation of confiscated goods, grant of free allowance, confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962, and reduction in redemption fine and personal penalty, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal considerations and decisions made by the Government in this case.
|
