1991 (10) TMI 143 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the Order-in-Appeal dated 29-12-1989.
2. Legality of the seizure of foreign-origin goods.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
4. Burden of proof regarding the legality of importation.
5. Validity of the mortgage receipt and baggage receipts.
6. Applicability of relevant legal provisions and case laws.
7. Determination of smuggled goods and appropriate penalties.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Order-in-Appeal dated 29-12-1989:

The appellant challenged the Order-in-Appeal dated 29-12-1989 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, which rejected the appellant's appeal. This appeal arose as a result of a remand by the CEGAT, New Delhi, vide Order No. A-397/89 dated 27-9-1989.

2. Legality of the Seizure of Foreign-Origin Goods:

Preventive Officers of Customs, Kanpur, conducted a search on 11-6-1986 at the appellant's house based on an advertisement for the sale of an Akai VCP and a national Video Camera. Goods of foreign origin valued at Rs. 41,000/- were recovered. The appellant's wife could not produce valid proof of import/acquisition/possession of the goods and admitted they were brought by her husband in April 1986 without customs duty documents. The appellant was summoned multiple times but did not appear, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice on 9-12-1986 for contravention of Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:

The appellant claimed non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, citing his inability to appear due to a road accident. Despite medical evidence, he did not file a reply to the show cause notice, leading to an ex parte Order-in-Original dated 18-6-1987 by the Deputy Collector, ordering absolute confiscation of the goods and a penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

4. Burden of Proof Regarding the Legality of Importation:

The appellant argued that the burden of proof to show that non-notified goods were smuggled lay with the department. The appellant contended that the department had not discharged this burden, and hence, no confiscation should occur. The appellant relied on multiple rulings to support this argument.

5. Validity of the Mortgage Receipt and Baggage Receipts:

The appellant produced a baggage receipt and a mortgage receipt to prove the legality of the goods. However, the Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal found these documents to be manipulated and not credible. The baggage receipt did not correlate with the seized goods, and the mortgage receipt was not admissible under the Stamps Act.

6. Applicability of Relevant Legal Provisions and Case Laws:

The Tribunal examined the applicability of various legal provisions and case laws cited by both parties. The Collector (Appeals) noted that the video camera was not a notified item under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, but no proof of legal importation was provided. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's findings, distinguishing the cited case laws as not relevant to the present case.

7. Determination of Smuggled Goods and Appropriate Penalties:

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant and his wife admitted to importing the goods from Libya, shifting the burden of proof to the appellant, which he failed to discharge. The Tribunal found the goods to be smuggled and upheld the confiscation. However, instead of absolute confiscation, the Tribunal allowed for redemption of the Akai VCP on payment of a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and the video camera on payment of a fine of Rs. 8,000/-, subject to the payment of duty.

Conclusion:

The appeal was disposed of with the Tribunal ordering the redemption of the seized goods on payment of fines and duty, affirming the findings of the Collector (Appeals) and addressing the issues of burden of proof, validity of documents, and compliance with legal provisions.