2015 (1) TMI 1124 - HC - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Import of prohibited goods - Imposition of penalty - held that - All the authorities found that the goods and considering their quantity can never be said to be brought for personal consumption or use. If they were imitation articles or goods and the quantity was like 40 Sunglasses, 40 pairs of gents shoes, 30 pairs of ladies shoes, 30 wallets and there was an admission that the goods are brought for sale in India, then, all the more the conclusion reached and concurrently cannot be said to be perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The writ petitions are devoid of any merits, frivolous and wastage of precious judicial time. They are dismissed with costs quantified at ₹ 25,000 - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Impugned concurrent orders under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Confiscation of prohibited goods and imposition of penalty.
3. Lack of option to redeem goods for personal use.
4. Determination of goods not for personal consumption but for sale.
5. Dismissal of writ petitions as devoid of merits.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the impugned concurrent orders made by authorities under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners were apprehended at the International Airport, and upon examination of their baggage, prohibited goods in the form of imitation articles of reputed brands were recovered. Consequently, the goods were confiscated, and a penalty of &8377; 5,000/- each was imposed on the petitioners.

2. The main argument raised in both petitions was the lack of an option given by the authorities to redeem the goods. It was contended that the goods were not intended for commercial purposes but for personal use by family members and close friends. However, all authorities found that the quantity and nature of the goods, such as 40 Sunglasses, 40 pairs of gents shoes, 30 pairs of ladies shoes, and 30 wallets, indicated they were not for personal consumption but for sale in India.

3. The judgment emphasized that the goods being imitation articles and brought in such quantities for potential sale undermined the claim of personal use. The conclusion reached by the authorities was deemed reasonable and not vitiated by any legal error. As a result, the writ petitions were dismissed as frivolous, lacking merit, and a waste of judicial time. The petitioners were directed to pay costs amounting to &8377; 25,000/- to the respondents within four weeks.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the actions of the authorities under the Customs Act, 1962, regarding the confiscation of prohibited goods and imposition of penalties. It underscored the importance of complying with import regulations and rejected the argument of goods being intended for personal use when the evidence suggested otherwise. The dismissal of the writ petitions highlighted the court's stance on frivolous claims and the consequences of wasting judicial resources.