2015 (3) TMI 818 - HC - Customs

Import of two television sets as baggage - petitioners claimed exemption of the entire amount of customs duty in respect of the said two television sets, on the ground that all the nine members of the joint family were travelling together, and the said televisions sets were to be used by members of their joint family - therefore he claimed refund of customs duty collected by the Customs authorities with interest - Held that - Baggage Rules were framed under Section 79(2) of the Customs Act for regulating the exemption granted under the enabling section 79(1) of the said Act and while framing the said Baggage Rules the Central Government was conscious of the fact that as per Section 79 exemption is granted in respect of an article or articles in the baggage of an individual passenger brought for his own use or for the use of his/her family. Thus, in order to ensure that the user of the words All Passengers in the opening sentences in Clauses (a) to (d) under Column 1 of the said Appendix does not give rise to any ambiguity in spite of the clear language of Section 79 of the Customs Act, the Explanation was put under Appendix A to exclude any claim for free allowance by a passenger, by pooling the free allowance of any other passenger. Any other interpretation, as contended by the petitioners, shall render the said Explanation otiose. After considering the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 79 of the Custom Act, as stated above and the relevant Rules of the said Baggage, I cannot but hold, that in Rule 2(d) of the said Baggage Rules, the definition of family has been provided for the purpose of interpreting the user of an article brought by a passenger for the use of his family under Section 79(2)(b) of the Customs Act and the said definition of family in Rule 2(d) of the Baggage Rules does not create any ambiguity. Thus, none of the decision of the Supreme Court cited by Mr. Dutt in the cases of C. Krishna Prasad (1974 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court), has any manner of application in this case. - illegality in the collection of customs duty for a sum of Rs . 39,984/- from the petitioners on account of the said television sets and consequently the writ petition fails - Decided against assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Claim for refund of customs duty.
2. Interpretation of Section 79 of the Customs Act and Baggage Rules, 1998.
3. Definition and application of "family" under the Baggage Rules.
4. Validity of pooling free allowance among family members.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Claim for Refund of Customs Duty:
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a refund of Rs. 39,984/- with interest, which was collected as customs duty on two television sets purchased in Singapore. They argued that the customs duty should not have been imposed as they were entitled to an exemption under the Customs Act and Baggage Rules, 1998.

2. Interpretation of Section 79 of the Customs Act and Baggage Rules, 1998:
The petitioners contended that Section 79 of the Customs Act allows the customs officer to pass articles in the baggage of a passenger free of duty, subject to the Baggage Rules. They argued that since the two television sets were for the use of their joint family, they should be exempt from customs duty. The customs authorities, however, maintained that the exemption under the Baggage Rules is applicable to individual passengers only and cannot be pooled among family members.

3. Definition and Application of "Family" under the Baggage Rules:
The petitioners relied on the definition of "family" in Rule 2(iv) of the Baggage Rules, which includes all persons residing in the same house and forming part of the same domestic establishment. They argued that this definition should allow them to pool the free allowance of Rs. 25,000/- per family member, thus exempting the television sets from customs duty. The customs authorities countered this by stating that the free allowance cannot be pooled with that of any other passenger, as explicitly mentioned in the Explanation below Appendix 'A' of Rule 3 of the Baggage Rules.

4. Validity of Pooling Free Allowance Among Family Members:
The court examined the relevant provisions of the Customs Act and Baggage Rules. Section 79(1)(b) of the Customs Act allows for the exemption of articles for the use of the passenger or his family, but this is subject to the rules framed under Section 79(2). Rule 3 of the Baggage Rules specifies that an Indian resident returning from abroad is allowed clearance free of duty for articles up to Rs. 25,000/-. The Explanation below Appendix 'A' clearly states that the free allowance cannot be pooled with that of any other passenger. The court concluded that the rules do not permit pooling of the free allowance among family members, and the customs authorities were correct in collecting the duty.

Conclusion:
The court found no illegality in the collection of customs duty amounting to Rs. 39,984/- from the petitioners. The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were not entitled to a refund. The court also noted that the definition of "family" under Rule 2(iv) of the Baggage Rules does not create any ambiguity and does not support the petitioners' claim for pooling the free allowance. Consequently, the petitioners' arguments based on various Supreme Court decisions were found to be inapplicable to this case. There was no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →