1987 (2) TMI 228 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of National Panasonic Colour T.V. and National Video Cassette Recorder (VCR) under Sections 111(d) and 111(p) of the Customs Act, 1962, along with imposition of a penalty under Section 112(b).
2. Legal importation of VCR and confiscation under Section 111(d) or 111(p).
3. Confiscation of Colour T.V. set under Section 111(d) and contravention of Section 11-D of the Customs Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The impugned order confiscated the Colour T.V. and VCR under Sections 111(d) and 111(p) of the Customs Act, 1962, with a penalty imposed under Section 112(b). The appellant challenged this order, leading to a detailed examination of the legality of the confiscation and penalty.

Issue 2:
Regarding the VCR, it was argued that it was legally imported under Transfer of Residence Rules, supported by evidence of legal acquisition. The VCR was not a notified item under Chapter IV-A or Section 123 of the Customs Act at the time of seizure, leading to the setting aside of confiscation as the Department failed to prove illegal importation.

Issue 3:
Concerning the Colour T.V. set, the appellant claimed it was brought under Transfer of Residence Rules and owned by another individual. The adjudicating authority rejected the evidence, citing technicalities. However, the Tribunal found the evidence valid, emphasizing the burden on the appellant to prove legal importation. The Tribunal held that the Baggage Declaration Form was a valid piece of evidence, and the confiscation under Section 111(d) was deemed incorrect due to the lack of doubt regarding legal importation. While a contravention of Section 11-D was acknowledged, the confiscation under Section 111(p) was upheld but allowed redemption on payment of a fine, reducing the penalty accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation of the VCR due to lack of evidence of illegal importation and upheld the redemption of the Colour T.V. set on payment of a fine, reducing the penalty for contravention of Section 11-D. The appeal was disposed of based on these findings.