9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods under the Customs Act 2. Legal import of seized goods 3. Adjudicating authority's reasoning for confiscation 4. Appellant's defense against confiscation 5. Human tendency in consuming liquor 6. Appellant's plea for quashing the order Confiscation of Goods under the Customs Act: The appellant's residential premises were searched, leading to the recovery of foreign-origin goods. The goods, including beer, whisky, and video cassettes, were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act. A show cause notice was issued for confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(p) of the Act, along with a penalty. Legal Import of Seized Goods: The appellant claimed that the seized goods were legally imported during his numerous trips abroad. He argued that the goods were within the free baggage allowance, with some instances of duty payment. The appellant emphasized that the goods were not for business purposes and were allowed under the Baggage Rules. Adjudicating Authority's Reasoning for Confiscation: The adjudicating authority confiscated the liquor, citing the perishable nature of alcohol and questioning the retention of a large quantity for several years. The authority doubted the legality of import due to the absence of documentation and the appellant's statement as the sole evidence. Appellant's Defense Against Confiscation: The appellant's advocate argued against the confiscation, stating that the decision was based on conjecture about human behavior in consuming liquor quickly. The appellant maintained that he had proven the legal import through his travel history and compliance with baggage rules, shifting the burden of proof to the department. Human Tendency in Consuming Liquor: The tribunal criticized the assumption that humans consume liquor quickly, highlighting the diversity in human behavior. It rejected the notion that the seized liquor must have been imported recently due to this assumption, emphasizing the complexity of individual conduct. Appellant's Plea for Quashing the Order: The tribunal overturned the confiscation and penalty, finding the department's reasoning weak and the appellant's explanation plausible. It emphasized the need to consider all evidence, including the appellant's travel history and compliance with regulations, in assessing the legality of the seized goods. In conclusion, the tribunal quashed the impugned order, releasing the confiscated goods and canceling the penalty, in favor of the appellant based on the weakness of the department's arguments and the strength of the appellant's defense.
|
