1990 (4) TMI 150 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Illegal importation and confiscation of a photostat machine, imposition of penalties under Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
The case involved the illegal importation and subsequent confiscation of a photostat machine, make 'Cannon', of foreign origin from the business premises of M/s. Dashmesh Photostat Civil Court. The Customs officers seized the machine due to the absence of documents proving its licit purchase or possession. Statements from individuals involved, including operators and purchasers, were recorded during the investigation.

Upon adjudication, the photostat machine was deemed to be illegally imported and was confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. Personal penalties were imposed on two appellants, while the other individuals were not found guilty. The appellants challenged the findings, arguing that the department failed to prove the illicit import of the machine, especially since photostat machines are not specified under the Customs Act. They claimed they had no knowledge of the machine's illegal importation.

The advocate for the appellants further contended that the machine was not even notified under the Customs Act, and therefore, there was no obligation to maintain purchase records. They argued that penalties should not be imposed as they believed the machine was legally imported. The department, represented by SDR Smt. Dolly Saxena, maintained that the onus was on the appellants once the foreign origin of the machine was established.

In the judgment, the presiding judge observed that the appellants should have been alerted to the smuggled nature of the photostat machine due to the lack of sale/importation documents. Despite not being specified under the Customs Act, the machine was considered to have been illegally imported. The judge ordered the release of the machine on payment of a fine in lieu of confiscation.

Regarding penalties, the judge found that one appellant was impliedly aware of the illegal importation and reduced the penalty imposed. However, the penalty on the other appellant was set aside due to lack of evidence linking him to the purchase of the machine. The judgment allowed the appeal of one appellant, subject to modifications in the confiscation order and penalty reduction.