2016 (7) TMI 419 - CGOVT - Customs

Import of Sony Camera valued at ₹ 1,00,000 /- for someone in a baggage - passenger was intercepted at the green channel - Absolute confiscation - Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai allowed redemption of the impugned goods on payment of redemption file of ₹ 10,000/- and reduced the penalty to ₹ 5,000/- Revenue filed this revision application - Held that - it is an admitted fact by the respondent that he had carried the impugned item for someone else and there is nothing on record to show that any invoice was produced before the original authority or any claim made that the item was for gifting purpose. There is nothing on record to show that the said submission has been made under any pressure or duress. In fact it is undeniably a voluntary statement made by the respondent during the course of personal hearing granted in the interest of natural justice clearly admitting that the Sony Camera was brought by the respondent to handover someone else in India. In the present case as the passenger is not the owner of the goods and neither to whom the camera was meant to be handed over have claimed the impugned goods. Therefore, the camera cannot be allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine. - goods imported by the passenger as a carrier are liable for absolute confiscation. Government further finds that in view of the facts and circumstance of the case penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act ibid has been rightly imposed on the respondent. The quantum of penalty as imposed by the original authority is reasonable and commensurate with the nature of the offence to the extent that neither the goods were declared and were in excess of the admissible baggage allowance but were also meant for someone else. - Decided in favor of revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal allowing redemption of confiscated goods.
2. Contention regarding unintentional benefit to the passenger.
3. Authorization to file Revision Application by the Assistant Commissioner.
4. Application of Section 79(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Justification for absolute confiscation and penalty imposition.

Issue 1: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal allowing redemption of confiscated goods
The revision application was filed against the Order-in-Appeal that permitted redemption of confiscated goods on payment of a redemption fine and reduced the penalty. The main contention was that the respondent, a carrier, was granted an unintended benefit by the Commissioner (Appeals) without considering the fact that the goods were brought for someone else.

Issue 2: Contention regarding unintentional benefit to the passenger
The Department argued that the respondent's status as a carrier was ignored by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the unintended benefit of redeeming the goods. The respondent's admission during personal hearing that the goods were not his own and were meant for someone else supported the claim for absolute confiscation under relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 3: Authorization to file Revision Application by the Assistant Commissioner
The respondent objected to the maintainability of the Revision Application, claiming that the Assistant Commissioner was not authorized to file it. However, the Government found that the Assistant Commissioner had the necessary authorization from the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Air Cargo), dismissing the objection.

Issue 4: Application of Section 79(1) of the Customs Act, 1962
The Government referred to Section 79(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows duty-free passage for goods meant for personal use or as gifts. However, in this case, the respondent failed to declare the goods and exceeded the prescribed baggage limit, indicating an intention to evade duty, leading to the decision of absolute confiscation.

Issue 5: Justification for absolute confiscation and penalty imposition
The Government upheld the absolute confiscation of the goods, citing relevant case laws that supported such actions in cases where the goods were not owned by the passenger and were brought for someone else. The penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was deemed reasonable and appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

In conclusion, the Revision Application was allowed, setting aside the Order-in-Appeal and upholding the Order-in-Original for absolute confiscation and penalty imposition.