9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 77 of the Customs Act regarding declaration requirements for unaccompanied baggage; Applicability of duty rate based on the date of arrival of goods; Adverse inference against the Department for failure to produce original landing certificate; Absence of statutorily prescribed form for declaration of unaccompanied baggage. Analysis: The case involved a dispute over the duty rate applicable to unaccompanied baggage consisting of a video recorder and a TV imported by the appellant. The appellant argued that the landing certificate issued on the day of arrival should suffice as the declaration required under Section 77 of the Customs Act, entitling him to pay duty at the rate prevailing on that day. The Department contended that the landing certificate did not meet the declaration standards under Section 77 as it lacked essential details like value. The Tribunal noted previous decisions establishing the necessity of comprehensive particulars in declarations for duty assessment. The appellant claimed that the landing certificate contained all relevant particulars, including value, due to the simultaneous arrival of goods and passenger, supported by an affidavit and a request for the Department to produce the original certificate. Despite multiple adjournments, the Department failed to produce the original certificate, leading the Tribunal to accept the appellant's assertion as true. Drawing from a Delhi High Court judgment, the Tribunal emphasized the adverse inference against the Department for not producing crucial documents that could support the appellant's claim. The Tribunal highlighted the absence of a statutorily prescribed form for declaration of unaccompanied baggage, despite inquiries during the hearing. Considering the appellant's sworn statement and the lack of statutory forms presented by the Department, the Tribunal concluded that the landing certificate, in this case, met the requirements under Section 77 of the Customs Act. Therefore, the duty should have been levied based on the rate prevailing on the day of import, i.e., 12-7-1980, not the revised rate on 16-7-1980. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower authorities' orders with consequential relief.
|
