1988 (5) TMI 268 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of a brand new motor cycle claimed as un-accompanied baggage.
2. Applicability of Baggage Rules and import regulations.
3. Proof of ownership and possession of the motor cycle.
4. Justification for the order of confiscation.
5. Request for release on payment of fine.

Analysis:
1. The appellant's brand new motor cycle, claimed as un-accompanied baggage, was confiscated by the Asstt. Collector and confirmed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) due to lack of proof of ownership and unauthorized import.

2. The appellant argued that the motor cycle was for personal use and should be released on nominal fine, citing Rule 9 of the Baggage Rules permitting the import of motor cycles. However, the authorities contended that the motor cycle was not declared as un-accompanied baggage and lacked necessary documentation like a landing certificate or Customs Clearance Permit (CCP).

3. The appellant failed to provide evidence of ownership, purchase date, or possession of the motor cycle abroad before arriving in India, essential for claiming under Rule 7 governing unaccompanied baggage. The absence of a CCP for the import further supported the decision of confiscation by the authorities.

4. The Tribunal upheld the order of confiscation, stating that the appellant did not meet the requirements to establish the motor cycle as unaccompanied baggage, and the unauthorized import violated the Import (Control) Order. The possibility of misuse and lack of proof of personal use further justified the confiscation.

5. The appellant's request for release on payment of a fine was rejected, emphasizing the serious violation of import regulations and the potential misuse of the motor cycle. The Tribunal concluded that the appeal failed, and the confiscation order was upheld, denying the release of the motor cycle on payment of a fine.