9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Swaminathan arrived at Madras Harbour from Singapore bringing with him among other things a Sony Colour T.V. and one Akai Video Cassette Recorder of foreign origin with which alone we are concerned in the present appeal. The authorities coming to know that the said goods brought by Shri Swaminathan were meant only for the appellant, instituted proceedings against the appellant on the ground that the goods have been imported in contravention of law without a valid import licence and the proceedings thus instituted eventually culminated in the present impugned order now appealed against. 3. Shri Subramaniam, the learned Consultant for the appellant submitted that in terms of Section 79 of the Act, any article in baggage of a passenger ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und No. 6 of the appeal before the Appellate Collector of Customs [wrongly described Collector of Customs (Appeals)] would disprove the present plea of gift. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the parties herein. Admittedly the goods in question are intended for the appellant and were not brought by Shri Swaminathan as his baggage either for his use or for a bona fide gift. Section 79 of the Customs Act contemplates articles in the baggage of a passenger meant for the use of the passenger or the passenger's family or as a bona fide gift or souvenir. As rightly contended by the learned D.R., the pleas taken by the appellant before the lower appellate authority in para 3 & 6 of the appeal grounds would clearly bear out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Madras, under the impugned order in respect of confiscability of the goods in question. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the fine in lieu of confiscation and penalty cannot be said to be either harsh or excessive and I, therefore, confirm the quantum of fine as well as penalty imposed on the appellant under the impugned order appealed against. With reference to the plea of the appellant that a higher duty has been levied,. Shri Krishnan, the learned D.R. fairly conceded that the goods would be liable to duty as imported goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, under the appropriate heading and if a higher duty as applicable to baggage goods has been levied, the appellant would be entitled to refund of the excess duty paid. Since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
