1994 (8) TMI 53 - CGOVT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Review proposal filed by the Collector of Customs against order-in-appeal.
2. Confiscation of miscellaneous goods and imposition of penalties.
3. Challenge to the grant of the option of re-export by the Collector (Appeals).
4. Proper application of Section 20 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses a review proposal filed by the Collector of Customs against an order-in-appeal. The case involved the confiscation of miscellaneous goods valued at Rs. 1,48,600, including wrist watches and consumer goods. The Collector challenged the order-in-appeal on the grounds of non-declaration and concealment of goods, contravention of Customs Act, and the imposition of penalties. The Collector also disputed the grant of the option of re-export by the Collector (Appeals).

2. The goods, particularly the wrist watches, were allowed for home consumption on payment of redemption fines and duties. At the appeal stage, the wrist watches were permitted to be re-exported with revised penalties due to the respondent's inability to provide details of export incentives. The Collector challenged the order-in-appeal based on the non-declaration and concealment of goods, questioning the application of relevant sections of the Customs Act.

3. The Collector's challenge regarding the grant of the option of re-export was scrutinized, highlighting past decisions clarifying the legal position. The judgment emphasized that the option of redemption for re-export can be granted even for mis-declared goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act. The review proposal was deemed lacking seriousness and proper study, leading to the rejection of the application for relaxation.

4. The judgment noted the oversight in the application of Section 20 of the Customs Act concerning the re-export of goods. Consequently, the government provided an additional option of redemption for home consumption of the watches at the same fine amount as re-export. The personal penalty was maintained, and the application seeking relaxation was ultimately rejected based on the findings and legal provisions outlined in the judgment.