1987 (7) TMI 233 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the goods imported by the appellant through a third party are considered as baggage goods under Section 79 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Whether the goods imported without a valid import license are liable for confiscation and penalty under Sections 111(d) and 112(a) of the Act.
3. Whether the duty levied on the imported goods is correct and if the appellant is entitled to a refund of excess duty paid.

Analysis:
1. The appellant argued that the goods in question, a Sony Colour T.V. and an Akai Video Cassette Recorder, were gifted by an individual from Singapore and should be considered as baggage items under Section 79 of the Customs Act. However, it was found that the goods were imported by the appellant through a carrier, not as baggage for personal use or as a gift. The Tribunal held that the goods were not baggage goods but were imported by the appellant through a third party, making them subject to import regulations and not eligible for clearance as baggage items.

2. The respondent contended that since the goods were imported without a valid import license, they were in contravention of the law, making them liable for confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act. The Tribunal upheld this argument, stating that imported goods without the required license are subject to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act, along with a penalty under Section 112(a). The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the Appellate Collector of Customs regarding the confiscation of the goods and the imposition of a fine and penalty on the appellant.

3. The appellant raised concerns about the duty levied on the imported goods, claiming that a higher duty rate was applied incorrectly. The respondent acknowledged that if a higher duty was levied as applicable to baggage goods, the appellant would be entitled to a refund of the excess duty paid. The Tribunal advised the appellant to provide evidence of the excess duty payment to seek a refund from the appropriate authority under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. While the Tribunal couldn't determine the actual payment of duty, it clarified that the appellant could pursue a refund upon proper documentation.

This judgment clarifies the distinction between baggage goods and imported goods, emphasizing the necessity of a valid import license for imported items. It also highlights the process for seeking a refund of excess duty paid on imported goods subject to incorrect duty rates.