1991 (4) TMI 280 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the confiscation of the .32 Bore Revolver is in accordance with the law.
2. Whether the failure to give an option to the appellant for redeeming the revolver on payment of a fine is justified under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the confiscation of the .32 Bore Revolver is in accordance with the law.

The appellant received a .32 Bore Revolver from a relative in England but failed to produce a Customs Clearance Permit (CCP) before clearance. The Assistant Collector issued a Show Cause Notice and subsequently confiscated the revolver under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, citing unauthorized importation. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) upheld this decision, noting that the appellant could not furnish the CCP despite being given time. The Tribunal examined the case under Para 158 of the Import & Export Policy 1985-88, which allows gifts from close relations (defined as father, mother, wife, husband, son, daughter, or real brother/sister) living abroad for over two years. The appellant did not claim the sender was a close relation under this definition and admitted to not having a CCP. Thus, the Tribunal found the confiscation justified, referencing a similar decision in P.C. Joshi v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi.

Issue 2: Whether the failure to give an option to the appellant for redeeming the revolver on payment of a fine is justified under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The appellant argued that the authorities did not consider Section 125 of the Customs Act, which allows for redemption of confiscated goods on payment of a fine. The Tribunal acknowledged that while the confiscation was legally sound, the authorities failed to exercise discretion under Section 125(1). Past practices and instructions from the Central Board of Excise & Customs indicated that similar items had been released on payment of redemption fines. The Tribunal cited a Calcutta High Court decision emphasizing that such discretion should be exercised fairly and consistently with past practices. The case was remanded to the Assistant Collector for reconsideration, directing him to consider the appellant's plea for redemption in light of relevant circulars and past practices, and to pass a speaking order after hearing the appellant.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the revolver due to the lack of a CCP and non-compliance with the Import & Export Policy. However, it found merit in the appellant's argument regarding redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act. The case was remanded to the Assistant Collector for a fresh decision on whether the appellant should be allowed to redeem the revolver on payment of a fine, considering past practices and relevant circulars.