1986 (1) TMI 287 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Violation of Baggage (Condition of Exemption) Rules, 1975; Unauthorised adjudication by Superintendent of Customs; Confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(p); Violation of Chapter IV-A; Lack of evidence for charges; Confiscation based on assumption without proper evidence.

Analysis:

The appeal in question arose from an order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, regarding the confiscation of goods from the appellant. The appellant was detained by Customs Officers in Ahmedabad while alighting from a bus, and a National Panasonic Radio Cassette Recorder of Japanese make was found in his possession. The appellant claimed to have purchased the item in the open market and produced a baggage receipt and a radio license to support his claim of being a bonafide purchaser. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued alleging contravention of Customs Act provisions and Baggage (Condition of Exemption) Rules, 1975.

The Superintendent of Customs adjudicated the matter, ordering confiscation of the goods and imposing a personal penalty on the appellant. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the confiscation but set aside the personal penalty, citing a violation of Baggage (Condition of Exemption) Rules, 1975.

During the appeal hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the confiscation was unjustified as the appellant was innocent, having purchased the goods legitimately. The Collector's representative contended that there was a clear violation of the Baggage Rules and Chapter IV-A, justifying the confiscation.

The tribunal analyzed the case, noting that the Superintendent lacked jurisdiction for adjudication due to the value of the goods. It found that the appellant's possession of the notified goods did not automatically constitute a violation, especially as he claimed personal use. Moreover, there was no evidence to support the charges or establish a violation of Chapter IV-A.

The tribunal further criticized the Collector (Appeals) for confirming the confiscation without proper evidence or establishing the nature and value of the goods when new. It concluded that the confiscation was based on assumptions and lacked a factual basis. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside all previous orders and directing the release of the seized goods to the appellant.