1990 (8) TMI 263 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Original for confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty.
2. Confiscation of Sony TV and Canon Video Camera.
3. Verification of duty payment and legal importation documents.
4. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Original confiscating a color TV and a video camera, and imposing a penalty on the appellant. The case involved goods recovered from a car, with the driver stating they belonged to the appellant. The appellant claimed to have legally imported the TV and camera, providing some documents but lacking proof of duty payment. The Customs officers seized the goods, suspecting violation of import regulations. Both sides presented arguments regarding duty payment verification and legal importation evidence.

The Tribunal considered two main points: (i) Confiscation of the TV and (ii) Confiscation of the video camera. For the TV, the appellant failed to provide proof of duty payment despite producing a baggage declaration. The appellant claimed the duty receipt was misplaced, but the airport confirmed no duty payment. The Tribunal directed the TV's return upon payment of a redemption fine. Regarding the video camera, the appellant presented a false baggage receipt, failing to prove legal importation after duty payment. Despite this, the Tribunal allowed redemption of the camera upon payment of a fine and duty within three months.

Regarding the penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, the Tribunal found the appellant not knowingly involved in goods liable for confiscation. Considering the appellant's position and circumstances, the penalty imposition was set aside, and the deposited amount refunded. The Tribunal emphasized the appellant's lack of knowledge regarding the goods' confiscation liability and granted the benefit of doubt.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed redemption of the TV and camera upon payment of fines and duty, set aside the penalty imposition, and ordered the refund of the deposited amount. The judgment balanced legal requirements with the appellant's circumstances and lack of knowledge, providing a detailed analysis of duty payment verification and importation evidence.