1998 (8) TMI 236 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of seizure of watches and watch movements.
2. Justification for confiscation and imposition of penalties.
3. Determination of value of the seized watches.
4. Appropriateness of absolute confiscation versus allowing redemption.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Seizure of Watches and Watch Movements:
The primary issue was whether the Customs officers had a "reasonable belief" that the goods were smuggled. The officers conducted a search based on information related to dry cell batteries but found 1,627 wrist watches and 3,000 watch movements of foreign origin. The two directors present could not provide explanations, and the relevant documents did not indicate payment of customs duty. The Tribunal examined precedents like Shanti Lal Mehta and Indru Ramchand Bharvani to determine the legitimacy of the "reasonable belief." The Tribunal concluded that the circumstances, including the foreign origin of the goods and the absence of proper documentation, justified the officers' reasonable belief that the goods were smuggled, thereby invoking Section 123 of the Customs Act.

2. Justification for Confiscation and Imposition of Penalties:
The adjudicating authority had confiscated the goods and imposed penalties. The appellants argued that 1,500 out of 1,627 watches were purchased from M/s. Rama Watch Industries, Rajkot, supported by an invoice. However, the Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the appellants' explanations over time. Initially, the appellants claimed the watches were assembled in their premises, but later stated they were purchased from Rajkot. The Tribunal found these contradictory statements undermined their credibility. Conversely, for the 3,000 watch movements, the Tribunal accepted the appellants' explanation supported by documentation, indicating these were part of a legally imported consignment. Thus, the confiscation of watch movements and related penalties were deemed unjustified.

3. Determination of Value of the Seized Watches:
The adjudicating authority had determined the value of the watches as Rs. 1,500 per unit based on market enquiry. The appellants contested this valuation, presenting an advertisement showing the watches were sold at Rs. 500 onwards. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner did not adequately consider this evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the value should be reassessed, suggesting the wholesale price in India to be around Rs. 500 per unit.

4. Appropriateness of Absolute Confiscation versus Allowing Redemption:
The Tribunal found that absolute confiscation of the wrist watches was not justified given the circumstances, including the lower value of the watches compared to the Commissioner's assessment. They suggested that the confiscation should allow for redemption upon payment of a fine, which should be reasonably quantified. The penalties imposed on the directors were also to be reassessed, considering that H.B. Wadhawa was primarily in charge of the concern and the two ladies were unaware of the transactions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order regarding the watch movements, the absolute confiscation of wrist watches, and the penalties. The case was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh orders, allowing redemption of wrist watches upon payment of a fine and reassessment of penalties. The CIF value of the wrist watches was also to be determined afresh, with an opportunity for the appellants to be heard before passing the new order. Appeals were allowed in this manner.