9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Customs Act regarding redemption of seized goods, applicability of duty payment on goods cleared under baggage, genuineness of baggage receipts, liability to pay duty, relevance of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: The judgment involved a case where Customs Officers intercepted and seized Video Cassette Recorders from the appellants at Madras Central Station. The goods were seized as the appellants could not satisfactorily account for their licit acquisition. The appellants produced baggage receipts for the goods, claiming they were cleared under baggage with valid duty payment. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) set aside the absolute confiscation order and allowed redemption of goods on payment of fines. The main issue raised was whether the goods would be liable for customs duty upon redemption for home consumption in light of an amendment to Section 125 of the Customs Act, dated 27-12-1985. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that if the baggage receipts were genuine, no duty would be payable, and if not, duty would be leviable only under illegal import provisions. The learned SDR contended that duty was always leviable upon redemption of goods under Section 125 of the Act, irrespective of the amendment. The SDR suggested a re-examination of the genuineness of the baggage receipts to determine duty liability. The tribunal agreed with the SDR that the amendment to Section 125 was not relevant to the case. It was emphasized that even before the amendment, duty was leviable upon redemption of goods. The tribunal highlighted the need for the appellants to prove the genuineness of the baggage receipts to establish duty liability. The tribunal remitted the case back to the original authority to determine the genuineness of the baggage receipts and the duty leviable on the goods. It was clarified that if the appellants could prove the genuineness of the receipts, no further duty would be payable. However, if they failed to establish the connection between the receipts and the seized goods, duty would be payable as per law. The tribunal allowed the appellants to present any additional pleas regarding duty liability under Section 15 of the Act before the original authority. The appeals were disposed of with the direction for a re-examination of the genuineness of the baggage receipts and determination of duty liability accordingly.
|
