9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a penalty of Rs. 5.000/- on the respondent. 2. Brief facts of the case so far as relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that on 17-4-1984, Preventive Staff of the Central Excise Collector, Chandigarh intercepted the respondent while carrying one suit-case in his right hand. On examination of the suit-case it was found that it contained a protable video cassette recorder with one A.C. Adopter alongwith two leads (Made in Japan), one coloured video camera Panasonic with one attachment (Made in Japan) duly wrapped in one blanket alongwith three operating instruction book-lets. Since the respondent on demand failed to produce any documentary evidence for legal possession/acquisition or importation of the aforesaid goods of foreign origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tained that the said articles belong to Santokh Singh. After the usual enquiry, the Adjudicating Authority found the respondent guilty of contravening the provisions of the Customs Act and confiscated the VCR with one A.C. Adopter alongwith two leads and coloured video camera alongwith one attachment but gave an option to the respondent to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/-. He also confiscated the suit-case with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 50/- only. He further imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the respondent. Being aggrieved the respondent preferred his appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) who Vide his impugned order allowed the appeal holding that though there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement recorded on the spot, the appellant had stated that the seized goods were given to him by a German tourist, but subsequently, he changed his earlier version and submitted in his reply to the show cause notice that they belong to one Santokh Singh. This change of version, according to him, amounts to a false denial and, therefore, could be relied upon for concluding that the seized goods were illegally imported. Shri Harbans Singh, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent countered the arguments of the appellant and supported the impugned order. 5. Before we proceed to consider the merits of the case, we would like to mention at the outset that the Collector of Customs (Appeals) has mainly allowed the appeal of the respondent fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is true that lighters and flints were notified as provided in Section 123 (2), in the Official Gazettee of 26-8-1967. Never the less, as the provisions of Section 123(1) of the Act only lay down a procedural rule, they could be applied when the case came up for trial before the Presidency Magistrate who actually decided it on 15-7-1969. Indeed the complaint was filed on 30-10-1968. It is immaterial that the respondent was found in possession of the goods on 21-4-1967". [Emphasis supplied] We also observe that the Collector of Customs (Appeals) has observed in the impugned order that the video camera is by no means a photographic camera. According to him, video camera acts on optical principles while the photographic camera operates accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstead of producing any bill/voucher or documentary evidence or otherwise for the lawful possession/acquisition or importation of the seized goods of foreign origin, stated that the German National who had come to India two months back had presented these items to him and he was carrying these items to show to one of his friends. However, in his reply to the show cause notice, he took to the somersault and submitted that the seized items were imported by one Shri Santokh Singh of Vill. Bhar-Sing-Pur, Teh. Phillaur, Distt. Jallandhar on transfer of residence and the same were cleared by the Air Customs, Delhi Airport vide entry No. 3985 dated 4-4-1984. In the reply to the show cause notice, he further stated that at the time of the seizure, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the course of arguments vehemently urged that it was necessary for the department to prove :- (i) that the goods in question were actually smuggled or brought into the country without payment of Customs duty at a time when the payment of such duty had become obligatory; (ii) that, the respondent was dealing with them knowing them to be smuggled goods. 7. It was contended that mere possession by the respondent of such goods could not enable the prosecution to ask the court to presume that the respondent knew that the goods have been smuggled or imported in contravention of the law. It was urged that there is no evidence which would enable the respondent to know that duty, if leviable was not paid on them. In nutshell, the cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
