9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal arises out of and is directed against the Order Bearing No. S/14-4-115/82-83PB dated 30.11.1982 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay. 2. The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is the absolute confiscation of two TV sets, one VCR, 10 Video cassettes, two Video Rack, 2 cartons Acropal, 1 T.V. fal, 1 Gas stove, 2 Pampers, 3 Gripe water bottles and 2 takes B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when the goods are sent through passengers it is not necessary to state in the chit that they are being gifted. It has to be presumed. Shri Shah finally relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court reported in 1976 CR. L.J. 932 in support of his contention that the passenger commits no offence if he makes true declaration of what he had brought irrespective of the fact whether the goods coul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e gifted to the appellant by his son-in-law and that the goods were permitted during the relevant period cannot be accepted. The passenger who had brought the items had also produced a letter addressed to the appellant by his son-in-law. In this letter there is no indication if at the items were sent as gifts. His son-in-law had even informed the appellant that if he needs any money he would secur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduce the letter or copy thereof. In his earlier statement he had stated that he had received a letter from his son-in-law stating that one T.V. set would be sent. The letter produced disclosed that 2 T.V. sets were sent. Having regard to this material discrepancy the Additional Collector was justified in holding that the letter produced during the personal hearing was not genuine. 6. Coming to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stly because the passenger who brought the baggage was not the owner of the baggage, secondly because it cannot be considered as baggage of the passenger and thirdly because the passenger did noz make a request to detain these articles for the purpose of being returned to him for re-export. 7. Having regarding to my finding that the articles were not the baggage of the passenger, the decision re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
