1987 (2) TMI 357 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Claim for transfer of residence concession denial

Analysis:
The appellant arrived in India after a stay in the U.S. and faced denial of transfer of residence concession due to excess goods and undeclared items found in his baggage. The appellant produced purchase receipts as evidence of possession, but examination revealed the goods were new and not used. The Additional Collector declined the concession for new goods and undeclared items. The Central Board of Excise and Customs rejected the appeal due to insufficient evidence on the goods' condition. The appellant later produced more purchase receipts before the appellate authority, showing some items were purchased more than a year before departure. The Tribunal considered these items as common household articles and granted the concession for them. However, the Tribunal upheld the denial for other articles due to lack of evidence of possession abroad for one year.

The appellant also requested a revision of the assessed value of the articles to account for depreciation. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant did not contest the valuation earlier in the process and raised the issue only during the Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant had the opportunity for re-examination of the goods but did not avail it. The Superintendent's report indicated the goods were new, and for items with satisfactory evidence of possession for one year, the Tribunal granted the concession. For the remaining articles, where evidence was lacking or items were new, the Tribunal found no basis for revising the valuation downward. The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine for the granted items but rejected the appeal for other items.

In conclusion, the Tribunal granted the transfer of residence concession for seven common household articles but upheld the denial for other items due to insufficient evidence of possession abroad for one year. The Tribunal also addressed the appellant's request for a revision of the assessed value, emphasizing the lack of contestation earlier in the process and the Superintendent's report indicating new goods. The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine for the granted items but rejected the appeal for the remaining articles.