1986 (2) TMI 188 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of seized goods under Customs Act.
2. Imposition of penalty under Customs Act.
3. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal.
4. Interpretation of Sections 11D and 11G of the Customs Act.
5. Legal infirmities in the order-in-original and order-in-appeal.

Confiscation of Seized Goods under Customs Act:
The case involved the seizure of miscellaneous goods and clothes alleged to be of foreign origin from the appellant's residential premises by Preventive Officers of Central Excise & Customs. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant for contravention of Customs Act provisions, leading to the adjudicating authority ordering the release of most goods but confiscating others under Sections 111(d) and 118 of the Customs Act. The appellant contested the confiscation, claiming the goods were gifts and not for commercial purposes. The appellate authority upheld the confiscation, imposing a personal penalty reduced on appeal.

Imposition of Penalty under Customs Act:
The Adjudicating Authority imposed a personal penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act on the appellant for contravention of Customs Act provisions. The appellant appealed the penalty, resulting in a reduction from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 1,000 by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi.

Appeal against Order-in-Appeal:
The appellant challenged the Order-in-Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi. The Tribunal, represented by Shri G.P. Aggarwal, allowed the appeal, setting aside the order-in-original and the appellate authority's decision. The Tribunal directed the refund of the personal penalty and the immediate return of the seized goods to the appellant.

Interpretation of Sections 11D and 11G of the Customs Act:
The appellant argued that Section 11D of the Customs Act was not applicable to goods meant for personal use, citing Section 11G. However, the Tribunal found the argument misconceived, clarifying that Section 11G only refers to Sections 11C, 11E, and 11F, not Section 11D. The Tribunal analyzed the nature and quantity of seized goods, concluding that the appellant's explanation for certain goods was acceptable, leading to the allowance of the appeal.

Legal Infirmities in the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal:
The Tribunal identified patent infirmities in the order-in-original and order-in-appeal. It noted the failure to establish whether the seized goods were notified goods under Section 11 and the lack of disclosure of reasons for belief leading to the seizure. Despite these infirmities, the Tribunal did not delve into their legal impact as the appeal was allowed on other grounds. The Tribunal directed the immediate refund of the personal penalty and the return of seized goods to the appellant.